Game of Thrones: book thread

[LaGoosh]

As much as I love GOT I don't ever see it (or anything else) having a character as interesting, well acted, complex and fully formed as Tony Soprano. But yes I agree on the other stuff.

[Loki]

It's not even in the same league as Sopranos. It is a lot of fun, but let's not start pretending it's Shakespeare.

[Mr. Seven]

This is infuriating. If you rule out comedy and thus Only Fools And Horses, then there really hasn't been a more violently overrated television program than The Sopranos. It's absolutely mind-boggling. It is thought of as the AV version of The Bible by plebs, by actors, by writers, by directors, by just about everybody, really. To that end, I have often given it some thought and wondered if I am the problem. If, dare I say it, I'm wrong. After all, I consider myself a lover of fine art (and the work of Jason Statham*) and only watch shows like The Following** to laugh at them but The Sopranos has always left me as cold as a corpse.

 

I guess I have to say it. I simply don't get it. I don't get the appeal of Tony Soprano. I don't think that a protagonist needs to be a hero or even likeable in order to be compelling. My favourite films and television shows often feature extremely awful people at the forefront. Glengarry Glen Ross. The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford. The Godfather. The Third Man. American Psycho. Deadwood. The Wire. The Shield. Breaking Bad. Justified. 10 examples there, all of which boast truly reprehensible*** characters who drive the narrative. I recall being so excited about my father watching ...Jesse James because it cast a spell over me and he's a huge fan of Westerns. He didn't feel the same magic, asking, 'Was I supposed to like any of the characters?'. Well, no. Is that really important? For me, there's a big difference between liking a character and connecting with them. You can still care about them even if you see them skinning a child onscreen. So, my issue with Tony Soprano has never been one of finding its lead an unlikable guy. It's because I find him exceptionally dull. I see zero character development from episode one to the finale (same with all of the characters that litter this interminable show, tbh). Tony Soprano goes from Point A to Point A. But that's the point, right? Fair enough, but where's the intrigue?

 

Characters that are briefly interesting either devolve into uselessness (Christopher), are sacrificed to benefit the lead (Ralphie) or both (Christopher again). There's a similar thing at work in Boardwalk Empire, another HBO gangster show that indulges in serious navel-gazing, though at least that's finally starting to become vaguely interesting and its main character is at last flirting with becoming compelling. Congrats, it only took three whole seasons, but at least I give a shit about Nucky Thompson now. Tony Soprano? Much like Joaquin Phoenix's character in The Master, I spent the entire duration wishing the prick would die horribly. Boardwalk Empire's biggest problem is that it has a legion of secondary characters that you want to spend time with, but we're stuck with leads that irritate and distract. The Sopranos didn't even have those secondary characters (Christopher outstayed his welcome to the point that his demise wasn't depressing, just pathetic - while Ralphie, much like Boardwalk's Gyp Rosetti, is a character that you can only do so much with) to fall back on. These people are not compelling. Their problems are not interesting. If the point of The Sopranos is to illustrate the mundane reality of a mafia life, then mission fucking accomplished. The show moves at a glacial pace and nothing is accomplished. Again, if it's a deliberately nihilistic text then bravo David Chase, you well and truly made your point. Six seasons of nothing isn't anything you can ever label 'enjoyable', though.

 

As for where Game of Thrones fits in to the equation? Well, it's certainly a more enjoyable watch than The Sopranos but it hasn't really done enough to be considered anywhere near A Great Show yet, and may never do. It's fun escapism with some well-cast actors who are nailing their characters and others who aren't. There's not a great deal of substance but I'm not sure that there's meant to be.

 

* Statham flicks are a hell of a lot of fun and occasionally severely underrated, like Safe.

 

** Everyone needs to watch this. It's the biggest mess since Heroes.

 

*** In the case of Justified, I'd probably stop short of calling Boyd Crowder 'truly reprehensible' but he is highly fascinating and Walton Goggins is operating at the peak of his considerable powers.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I like The Following. And The Sopranos.

 

In fact, I think the first season of Heroes is one of the best series of television I've ever seen (admittedly, I gave up after season 2).

 

But, The Shield is my favourite show ever. So, there's hope for us yet Chuckles.

[Astro Hollywood]

Way off the mark about Boardwalk Empire. I can almost see why people might not be so into the first season, if they're stupid with the attention span of an ant, but seasons 2 and 3 really kicked it into that territory of being remembered along with The Wire when it's done, if it keeps up the same level of quality. The last season was amazing. The 'glacial pace' you speak of hasn't been the case for two years, and even the first could truthfully be described as 'measured'.

[HarmonicGenerator]

For me, the first season of Boardwalk only started to make sense once the second got going. I'd class myself as one of those "stupid with the attention span of an ant" types Astro mentions during points in the first season, and I was debating whether to bother with season 2. Then I did, and realised pretty sharpish that season 1, slow as it may have seemed at first, was just putting all the pieces in place for everything to majorly kick off from season 2 onwards. You needed that slower first season to get inside the heads and introduce yourself to the major players, so that what they did later meant more than if it had been all gung-ho right from the off. If that makes sense?

 

I've only seen the first season of The Sopranos, so I can't really judge on that.

[Loki]

To that end, I have often given it some thought and wondered if I am the problem. If, dare I say it, I'm wrong. After all, I consider myself a lover of fine art (and the work of Jason Statham*) and only watch shows like The Following** to laugh at them but The Sopranos has always left me as cold as a corpse.

 

It's probably this. It happens to all of us. I've never really got the immense love for Breaking Bad, and stalled just into the 2nd series, but I'd be a fool to assume therefore that it's bad. It just didn't, for some reason appeal to me - perhaps where I was mentally when I was watching, perhaps the other things I was watching at the time, perhaps I just didn't click.

 

It's interesting you compare it to ...Jesse James, as I had the same problem with that film as you seem to have with The Sopranos. I tend to need a strong character to relate to, if not actively support. For me, the joy of The Sopranos is that even though the entire cast are, ostensibly, utterly reprehensible characters, you nevertheless end up being dragged into their world view and therefore start seeing them through their own eyes. Tony often sees himself as a victim, both of social snobbery and of the childish behaviour of his subordinates. Of course, he's the worst of them, but he can't see that. Most viewers find themselves instinctively aligning with him, wishing him to restore order to his business.

 

The supporting cast are all brilliant and interesting characters too, and everyone seems to find their favourites and then support them like they're wrestlers or something. Their problems are interestting, and funny due to the absurd clash between their terrible trade and their self-righteous indignation most of the time.

 

But as I say, sometimes series just don't click. I thought Homicide was utterly brilliant, but others think it's just a substandard The Wire or something. It doesn't take away from its place in tv history, and its influence. The Sopranos probably retains such high mystique because it was top of the tree at the point that television drama really took over from film drama as the acknowledged home of great writing, acting, production, and ushered in the golden age of US tv drama which we're still experiencing IMO.

[Astro Hollywood]

For me, the first season of Boardwalk only started to make sense once the second got going. I'd class myself as one of those "stupid with the attention span of an ant" types Astro mentions during points in the first season, and I was debating whether to bother with season 2. Then I did, and realised pretty sharpish that season 1, slow as it may have seemed at first, was just putting all the pieces in place for everything to majorly kick off from season 2 onwards. You needed that slower first season to get inside the heads and introduce yourself to the major players, so that what they did later meant more than if it had been all gung-ho right from the off. If that makes sense?

 

It does. And that whole 'slower first season' thing doesn't even matter now, well into in the age of box sets, Netflix and downloading, when a show's place in history is marked by people who are watching at their own pace, or on multiple watches, where something like Carnivale, with a notoriously slow first season transforms into a better pace, when you know the characters and see what they're doing with the show.

[Loki]

The one problem with a "slow" pace is that it sometimes is the death of a series, if it suppresses viewership. Hence shows like Justified pushing the pace for the first few episodes to suck people in.

[HarmonicGenerator]

The one problem with a "slow" pace is that it sometimes is the death of a series, if it suppresses viewership. Hence shows like Justified pushing the pace for the first few episodes to suck people in.

 

I'd agree with that. I know a few people for whom Boardwalk Empire has slipped right down their list of viewing priorities because of the first season - I'm sure they'll get round to it eventually, and love it when they do, but there's only so much free time in a day. I think that despite the boxset/Netflix/etc factors Astro mentions, there probably still has to be something to capture you right from the off, so that you feel compelled to devote that free time to it, rather than obliged because you know it'll get great in 10 hours' time.

[Astro Hollywood]

The one problem with a "slow" pace is that it sometimes is the death of a series, if it suppresses viewership. Hence shows like Justified pushing the pace for the first few episodes to suck people in.

 

True, but I think that happens less these days. It's more common now for shows to increase in ratings through the first couple of years, once the box sets are out, and everyone's marathoned through the first season. True Blood was a big example of this, and GoT -- never been a slow show, and not on a network, but besides... -- is a series whose greenlighting for new seasons came off the back of spectacular Blu Ray sales. And it'll all become less of a thing anyway, as when a show does start to build and get good buzz, people who never checked it out, or who quit after a few episodes, will just burn through the rest on Netflix or via Torrent and catch up to the good stuff.

[Chest Rockwell]

I've gotta agree to an extent that some shows just don't click. I started with Boardwalk, I recognise that it's very good and all... but ultimately it couldn't keep me watching because I just don't really like period dramas. I find all the costumery and necessity of historical accuracy distracting.

[Astro Hollywood]

Exactly. Viewers still count. Surely Carnivale is a great example of this because it got canned..?

 

Eight years ago though. In an era when $2m-per-episode budgets were unheard of, and the online television 'scene', if you know what I mean, wasn't the way it is now, in terms of building buzz and word getting out. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because it totally does, all the time, but as time goes on, slow starts will become less and less of a problem. The whole model of television is evolving so fast at this point. Be interesting to see how the Netflix Arrested Development does.

[Chest Rockwell]

Sorry. I edited that bit out because I was responding to Loki's post in the time in which you made a post which adequately convinced me times were a-changing.

 

Agreed that AD on Netflix will be a good case study.

[Mr. Seven]

Way off the mark about Boardwalk Empire. I can almost see why people might not be so into the first season, if they're stupid with the attention span of an ant, but seasons 2 and 3 really kicked it into that territory of being remembered along with The Wire when it's done, if it keeps up the same level of quality. The last season was amazing. The 'glacial pace' you speak of hasn't been the case for two years, and even the first could truthfully be described as 'measured'.

 

The 'glacial pace' was referring to The Sopranos. I draw the parallels in other areas, specifically how certain characters are dealt with in order to elevate Nucky, who I still maintain isn't anywhere near as compelling as those around him. Whenever we're in his presence or the increasingly irritating Margaret (seriously, what the fuck is with that accent?) I'm counting the minutes until we can get back to Luciano, Lansky, Capone, Rothstein, Van Alden, Harrow, etc. For the record, I quite enjoy Boardwalk, and Nucky is finally potentially interesting but I think I've stuck with the show because, unlike Chest, I love that period of history. I love the look, the costuming, the style. I also think the show deserves tremendous praise for its casting with the notable exceptions of Margaret (I like Kelly MacDonald but she's clunky as hell here) and Nucky. Buscemi is flat out not leading man material and it shows throughout. Again, that last scene of S3 gives me some hppe and I don't think you could ever label someone as talented as Buscemi as a 'bad' actor (he's clearly not) but I can't help but imagine others in Nucky's shoes.