The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers

[gphjr14]

They better not show the guy Spartacus, it has 10X the gore and nudity.

Also what about Boardwalk Empire? Violence, nudity, large cast of characters that speak different languages, because god forbid we speak something besides English.

NYT's reviewer must think its the 50's where women only wear dresses and anyone who speaks a foreign language is a possible communist.

 

[Danzavare]

I considered complaining but to be honest I don't watch the show and haven't read the books. (Nor do I plan to) I'd probably be just as dismissive and a tad more snarky than this person in reviewing most TV series (and their audiences). That being said, I'm not paid to do it.

I just read the review. It honestly doesn't seem that offensive, if you're a D&D type (Read: Really into conventional medieval fantasy) then you'll like this. The rest of the 'insults' seem to imply that if you're watching you're doing it more for a fantasy fix than you're doing it for its quality. Which, if her review was accurate, would be true.

 

[Alexchaser]

How do they explain it being incredible successful and getting nominated for an Emmy?

 

[Griffolion]

I'm a DnD type, and would really like to watch Game of Thrones. Maybe they're right...

 

[Thoric485]

Meh, the series is doing such a good job and is met with such acclaim, i really can't be bothered to give a fuck.

 

[rapidoud]

GoT gets a bad review, people ***** and moan until it gets a good one.

Not surprised.

 

[wooty]

I disagree, Game of Thrones massively held my attention and interest for 10 weeks, D&D barely held my attention for 10 minutes.

Then again, "anything with a sword in it is d&d", hes absolutely right. Kill Bill, The Last Samurai, Gladiator, Fearless, Hero, Sharpe. They all practically scream of medieval era dragon fighting wizardry and sorcery. My eyes have opened.

 

[Toothache of Sauron]

The New York Times hasn't slam the Game of Thrones Viewers, that would be wrong.

The truth is: The Game of Thrones advertisement division decides to pay a campaign to slam his viewers through the New York Times to ramp up views. Yes, it is that. They seek to create these news (did they pay you to talk about it too?, this is an honest question, not claiming anything wrong here nor trying to be sarcastic) so there's more talk about the series and some non fans, hearing the anger decide to give it a try.

So here's my reply: you pay insulting campaigns? Your grandma can go watch you.

 

[tehroc]

Sorry...The women are now the ones watching for the sex? Wow.

That's not a new concept. You ever heard of romance novels? You know the ones that had Fabio on the cover during the 90s. Those books are filled with women-porn.

 

[JokerboyJordan]

The New York Times hasn't slam the Game of Thrones Viewers, that would be wrong.

The truth is: The Game of Thrones advertisement division decides to pay a campaign to slam his viewers through the New York Times to ramp up views. Yes, it is that. They seek to create these news (did they pay you to talk about it too?, this is an honest question, not claiming anything wrong here nor trying to be sarcastic) so there's more talk about the series and some non fans, hearing the anger decide to give it a try.

Are you actually being serious?

 

[Ishigami]

Removed: Wrong topic.

 

[Lanowar]

Just seem's like people are angry someone didn't agree with them about Game of Thrones, if you're writing a review you go in wanting to be impressed. So they didn't like it? What's the point in demanding they get someone who likes Game of Thrones to watch it so they can say how awesome it is. Just seem's like am empty victory.

A review is meant to be a critique on the subject. It's not an essay on why something you like is amazing. You can get that by talking to the person who posted above you and below you and get the same feeling from reading a good review.So someone has a different opinion to you? I doubt HBO care and do you honestly care that someone doesn't like your favourite show? I mean some people in these comments have made it clear they don't like D&D but are you mad at that?

A paper you don't read said something about a show you and I hope your friends like too, so don't read the review. I know I won't, I mean I don't gain anything from it apart from the knowledge that some people are missing out on a good time if they were willing to invest time into it rather then writing it off. That's their loss, not mine.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Okay, I can get how the sex scenes would inherently be amped-up going from a book to a more visual medium, since what was a single sentence (eg. "They had sex") becomes a full scene.

But why are people saying that the books were borderline pornographic at points? I'm just at the end of A Storm of Swords and I don't see what they're getting at. Okay, to be honest there are a fair few sex scenes but most of them just seem to vaguely detail the position and then get on with it. Or maybe I'm just incredibly desensitized... Yeah, that sounds more likely.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Sensationalism, I never expected the New York Times to stoop to that lvl. Maybe they are just behind the times. "Elitist" comes to mind, but they are the New York Times.

Wonder what they said about Spartacus: Blood&Sands & Vengeance, if they were so fixated on the few scenes of graphic violence and sex so far in the Game of Thrones. XD

Heres hoping Game of Thrones season 2 doesn't turn out like Walking Dead season 2...i'm still trying to finish it, its hard as the characters in the show are all lobotomized that all of their actions could not be explained otherwise. (WHY OH WHY AMC DID YOU HAVE TO STRAY SO FAR FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL?! >.<)

 

[Grunt_Man11]

In my opinion, anyone who resorts to seriously (not satirically) insulting the fans, or perceived demographic, of something they dislike is a lousy reviewer and should be fired.
There's a difference between poking fun at someone and flat out maliciously demeaning them.

Seriously if you can't critique something without insulting those that enjoy it in a cold-blooded and/or ignorant manner, then you need to go back to working in retail or fast food.

 

[Shjade]

Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

I think that particular statement meant that the women were watching for the affairs and drama, not the physical part of the sex intrigue. I could be wrong.

But seriously, people read the New York Times for TV reviews?

 

[sleeky01]

Well, that was ignorant. Though I wish Martin would tone the nudity back a tad, it's not exactly a deal breaker. I do find it funny how these reviewers mock fantasy when in fact stuff like Lord of the Rings is far beyond the D&D crowd

To be fair it's not really Martin adding in the majority of the nudity. It's the producers of the show. And I'm sure HBO is OK with them doing it.

 

[guitarsniper]

Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

I think that particular statement meant that the women were watching for the affairs and drama, not the physical part of the sex intrigue. I could be wrong.

But seriously, people read the New York Times for TV reviews?

I read the New York Times for elections coverage. For TV reviews, I tend to watch an episode. It's 45 minutes out of my day. If it's wasted, whatever.