The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers

Mike Kayatta

Minister of Secrets
Aug 2, 2011
2,315
0
0
The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers



Fans of HBO's Game of Thrones adaptation aren't too happy with a recent review that calls them all "Dungeons & Dragons types."

The New York Times did a pretty decent job of angering people last year when it assigned Ginia Bellafante to review the first season of HBO's Game of Thrones adaptation. Bellafante, not otherwise known as a particularly controversial reviewer, accused the show of pandering to females by focusing on illicit sex intrigue, while claiming "that no woman alive would watch otherwise." You might think that after running such a dragon-waking statement, the New York Times would consider assigning a more fantasy-savvy writer to critique the series for season two. Spoiler Alert: they didn't.

The New York Times has replaced Bellafante with writer Neil Genzlinger for its Seven Kingdoms coverage, but still seems to have found yet another someone with almost no knowledge of the community or genre. Still, at least unlike his predecessor, Genzlinger has decided to focus on which sweepingly generalized group of people would be able to enjoy the show, as opposed to which sweepingly generalized group of people wouldn't. In this case, the "Dungeons & Dragons types."

"What Game of Thrones needs if it is to expand its fan base beyond Dungeons & Dragons types is what most of the United States didn't get this year: a hard winter," Genzlinger writes. "Life in this particular fantasy land consists of seasons of indeterminate length, and since the series began there have been references to an impending winter of fearsome power."

This isn't the first time a NYT writer has decided that the fantasy genre is shoehorned by the dice-driven RPG. In fact, even Bellafante previously described the show's entire look that way last year, writing that if you "are anyone [other than a fan of the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic], you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary."

Genzlinger then goes on to write that "if you look forward to Joffery's scenes, there's something wrong with you," and that "your brain doesn't have [enough] neurons" to remember the large cast, coming to the conclusion that "If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up."

While reviews are, by nature, the statement of opinion, perhaps it would still be in everyone's interest (The New York Times included) to find someone on staff with a wider vision of fantasy than "Anything with a sword in it is Dungeons & Dragons." I have many friends who dislike or, at the very least, feel apathetic toward HBO's adaptation, but at least they come to their opinions from a foundation of understanding the genre and the community that supports it. There is sign of improvement, though, as the Times seems to have advanced from "girls would hate GoT without all the sex" to "the only people who like this are D&D types," so, who knows? Perhaps in the future we can look forward to a more even analysis.

Source: The Mary Sue [http://www.themarysue.com/ny-times-game-of-thrones/]

Permalink
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
This doesn't surprise me, the New York Times is run by a bunch of stuffy professors who haven't seen their significant others naked for years - resorting to plain missionary style sex after having turned the lights off and lifted both parties night clothes a fraction.

Thus anything showing something outside of this manner of action must only appeal to the animals of the lower rungs. Because that's how they do it.

I can make sweeping, irrational generalisations too.
 

Braedan

New member
Sep 14, 2010
697
0
0
I know this is going to be pretty much preaching to the choir, but I doubt my girlfriend is coming over today to watch the steamy sex scenes (which are just as fucking awkward to watch as they were to read), and neither of us have touched DnD. They need to stop assigning people who hate fantasy to do reviews of fantasy.
 

Micalas

New member
Mar 5, 2011
793
0
0
Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?
 

Sis

New member
Apr 2, 2012
122
0
0
New York Times staff: We need someone to write a review for Game of thrones
New York Times chief: Lolnerds.
 

Detective Prince

New member
Feb 6, 2011
384
0
0
Sorry...The women are now the ones watching for the sex? Wow. Also. I adore Game of Thrones and own all the books and have never played D&D in my life. Sure I've been asked but I haven't ever taken an interest in it. You'd never use a generalizing statement like "Well if you're a white man you'll love this..." so why use it other generalizing statements that can be just as incorrect?
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
I don't understand the whole 'dungeons and dragons' or sex stuff. Granted I have never watched the HBO adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire but I seem to recall it was mostly political plotting and intrigue. Sure there was sex, and sure there was battles but I don't recall that taking center stage to all the intrigue.
 

Right Hook

New member
May 29, 2011
947
0
0
Mike Kayatta said:
"Anything with a sword in it is Dungeons & Dragons."
Seriously, maybe they need to question these morons before they let them write articles.
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Remember how everyone hated it when Tony Soprano's girlfriends ran around without their tops off and his openly sexist behavior? Or all the complaints when that sort of thing happened all the time in Deadwood?

No? Me neither, come to think of it.
 

mattaui

New member
Oct 16, 2008
689
0
0
It's full of sex and violence, much like the real world. The books, however, have much more of both. Just for comparison, the audiobook of the first volume alone clocks in at nearly 40 hours.

It's not a bad adaptation, though had I not read the books I don't think I'd be enjoying it as much, since I'm able to fill in the blanks.

The D&D commentary is pretty ludicrous, given what a low fantasy world Westeros is, but that would require them to actually know something about D&D, which is clearly beneath them.

Of course, the NYT is just shamelessly trying to generate traffic for itself, and so it's 'become the story'. Rather than reviewing GoT, it's just crying out for attention, the poor thing. They're just mad that anyone who doesn't fit their stereotype of a fantasy nerd enjoys this show. Makes me wonder what they thought about LotR and Harry Potter.
 

paislyabmj

New member
Mar 25, 2012
134
0
0
synobal said:
I don't understand the whole 'dungeons and dragons' or sex stuff. Granted I have never watched the HBO adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire but I seem to recall it was mostly political plotting and intrigue. Sure there was sex, and sure there was battles but I don't recall that taking center stage to all the intrigue.
if you watch a show that is 60% plotting 20% graphic sex and 20% incredible violence which bits would you remember? also i guess it is one of the things that set it apart from all the other big fantasy things like lotr.
 

Erja_Perttu

New member
May 6, 2009
1,847
0
0
Some days I'm not sure what the difference between a troll and a reviewer is - no, wait, reviewers get paid.

Sweeping generalisations are piss easy! I reckon I've found me a new career. To the New York Times Offices!
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Micalas said:
Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8853-All-About-the-Thrones

Somewhere around then.



Lets put it bluntly Game of thrones isn't the greatest piece of literature in the world. Trying to say that its more than an entertaining bit of hokem is significantly overstating the case. Its a soap opera with added swords and battles and works well on those terms but thats all it is
 

Pontus Hashis

New member
Feb 22, 2010
226
0
0
Hell, if we are talking ineptitude, let's go on to the "Dungeons and dragons type" statement.
There are, or atleast used to be, different standard worlds and settings in DnD. It's hard to use it as a type when we have stuff that differs alot like planescape and dark sun.

I just hate ignorant generalization. I can tolerate informed generalization, but don't like it.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Well, at least they've move beyond overt sexism. Sadly, they haven't moved beyond trolling for pageviews. Dear NYT: you guys aren't Jezzies - you're a respected pillar of print media. Have a little self-respect.
 

Zen Toombs

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,105
0
0
So women liked season 1 because there was a midget having orgies with a roomful of buxom ladies?

And the only people that like season 2 are the mouthbreathing neckbearded stereotype of D&D players?

Huh.

Also, I take umbrage with treating those who play D&D as this.

I don't need to argue that D&D is okay to anyone in the gaming community, so I'll just leave it at that.