Just plain bad casting on Cat and especially Arya Horseface. Still, a strong opener.

While Arya doesn't look "horsefaced", I thought she was brilliant. I am not sure if she even had a line in the first episode, but she nailed the esseance of Arya in every single scene she was in. I can't wait to see more from her.

There is a lot of nudity. But, there is almost always a lot of nudity on HBO shows. Rome, True Blood, Deadwood, etc, etc.

For what it is worth, my wife watched and loved it and she's not huge on all of that kind of thing. Then again, she's a big big fan of the books, so I am sure that has something to do with it.

Besides, didn't you read the New York Times review? All of the sex and nudity was added especially for the womens.

Cat is open to debate I suppose, personally I didn't mind much but I can understand.

Arya though? Even in the books she's not exactly a looker you know, hell, half the time people think she's a boy! As it is, I thought she did a very good job.

Yeah, this is why I was happy and sad to see this on HBO. I knew it would be done well, but I knew it would focus on the sex.

I think it's a bit of a reach, and wrong, to say that the show "focuses" on the sex. It certainly doesn't shy away from the sex/nudity, but it most certainly is not the "focus" of the show.

I found it pretty easy to follow. Ned is the good guy, the incest twins are bad, the guy with the pony tail is really bad, the King is good, but irresponsible, etc. I have no idea how well this correlates to the books, but it was easy for me to understand/get in to.

Agreed completely. The girl playing Arya was the one thing that really exceeded expectations for me. Tyrion, Robert and Visyres were the others I was impressed with, but Arya most of all.

ok, fine.. "highlights"... "makes prominent".. however you want to put it, it is more of a focus in the show than it was in the books.

I'm saying that without having seen the show fwiw.

[/list]
Agreed, I thought it was overdone. Loved the show, but there seems to be more focus on the nudity in the show vs. the books.

I think I will have to see more than one episode before I can agree or disagree with that statement. In fact, I believe the only scene with nudity in the first episode that was not in the books was the scene with Tyrion and the whores.

I am pretty sure that the Dany/Viserys scene in the bath was in the book, since Viserys is creepy and believe in the book he mentioned how based on the traditional Targaryen ways she would be his wife, everything at the Dothroki wedding and the scene with Dany and Drogo were in the book, and, obviously, the scene with Cersei and Jamie was in the book (though I can't rightly recall whether there was any nudity in that scene or not).

Granted, they could have cut those scenes or shot them in way that didn't show any nudity, but they were all in the books.

There is actually quite a bit of sex/nudity in the books and some of it gratuitous (e.g., the Dany lesbian scene, the Cersei lesbian scene, etc.). I actually don't really like them since I don't think George is very good at writing those scenes. Everything is sopping wet and there are glistening manhoods and things.

That said, a friend of mine wrote an email and part of his reactions to the show was that he thought that there was excessive nudity as well. It is definitely a legitimate gripe. And, like I said, something HBO tends to do with it shows. It's been doing it ever since waaaay back in the day on shows like "First & Ten". It's like they have to show breasts in an effort to say, "Hey! You're watching a show on cable. It's HBO, not TV. See, look, tittays!"

I think the worse offender I can recall was that HBO show "Tell me You Love Me." There, it was a combination of gratuitous nudity and excessive and completely unncessary "foul" language. I am by no means prudish or anything, and I know that show was supposed to be "real' and about adult relationships, but it felt like they were trying waaay too hard to be "adult."

Heh. :D

JPhillips, you will soon find that there is no good or bad, but only individual characters, some mostly good, some mostly bad, some conflicted between the two, and some that go from one spectrum to the other. It's a characteristic of Martin's stories.

Beat me to it. :)

Though there is no small amount of rampant forehead-smacking stubborn stupidity with some of the characters.

edit: Oh. And the actor playing Dany has one smoking hot ass.

While that's mainly true, especially for the main characters, there are a few characters who are, without a doubt, simply "bad" or "evil". Martin has his share of "monster" characters who are really completely unredeemable. That's not a complaint mind you.

Even those characters I would describe as simply focused on particular objectives. They're not simply bad or evil, as much as they have a very narrow focus for what they want to get, and they lack a clear moral compass with respect to how best to achieve that focus.

Certainly, there are unredeemable characters. But Martin does that (adjust these characters' focus or appreciation for morality) enough that you can never trust him with any of them. And frankly, some of them die before they get the chance to change.

I guess it depends on a deeper, more philosophical, discussion on the nature/definition of "evil" and whether it exists at all.

That discussion aside, I firmly consider, at the very least, the following characters to be "evil" or at least such complete vile dickheads that the vast majority of their actions in the novels could never really be justified:



Granted, most of those are very minor characters and we are talking about a handful out of a cast of thousands.

I wonder why this wasn't made into a movie a la Lord of the Rings. I didn't even notice an hour has passed. I have no issue with the nudity and when I saw the pale blond haired girl I said to myself I want to see her naked. I love all the political intrigue and can tell the little dwarf is a slick bastard.

The incest scene was a bit weird and maybe a little too much for me. The rest of the episode was great and has laid a solid foundation for the series. I give the first episode a 8/10

Because the first book (of 7 planned) is longer than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. The LOTR movies were three 2.5 - 3 hour films, so, in order to even do the first three books, you would be talking at least nine 2.5 - 3 hour long movies. That'd be crazy.

Regarding the casting on Catelyn Stark, I guess they may have changed direction on the character, or there may have been issues, since the actress changed for that role during casting (also for Daenerys.) Personally I feel that she is okay, but I would have liked to see her presented in the first episode as a bit younger looking at the least, since with all she has to deal with in the books it would be natural for her to look a bit older as the series goes on. But I don't think it's really a big deal.

Littlefinger was not in the episode, but was in the preview for the next. It was only a snippet ("That would be treason!" "Only if we lose." /evilgrin), but man did he pull off smarmy and sly well for that snippet.

I thought Arya was completely perfect, and while I figured Sansa would be a bit more beautiful, she does seem to be good at simpering and calf-eyed innocence.

The other thing that disappointed me was the Drogo/Dany consummation scene. Way too brief, and it felt a lot more like Dany was being taken unwillingly. The book's version where he seemingly asks permission and she grants it was a huge moment to me, and did a lot to shape their relationship. I also echo the worries about the actress playing Dany, though as someone else stated, it's probably just because she is scared as hell.

While I wasn't as surprised at the lack of snow around Winterfell, I WAS surprised by the lack of trees. I pictured Winterfell nearly surrounded by trees (the Wolfswood, I think?), and the empty, moor-looking lands around it was disconcerting to me.

Nope - that's the gist of it (for now). Cool.

Would it have enhanced your viewing experience at all to know the backstory though?

To know for example that Robert was once promised to Ned's sister, who ended up running off with the Targaryn crown prince (brother of the white-haired crazy guy), and that Ned's brother was killed by the crazy Targaryn king who then demanded that Ned & Robert be turned over to him to be killed too, and that then the Starks and Baratheon's (to simplify - the rebellion was actually led by Jon Arryn, their foster-father) led a rebellion that toppled the Targaryn's (complete with the male incest twin slitting the throat of the crazy king and opening the city gates to the invaders), and drove the last two Targaryn babies (crazy guy and naked girl) into exile on the other continent, and that as the price of having incest twin's powerful (rich) father support his crown that Robert had to marry her? Or is that level of backstory not necessary for your enjoyment?

You definitely nailed the gist of the characters by the way (at least for the moment as others have said) - I'm just wondering purely from an intellectual standpoint. Like I said - I liked it last night, but woke up this morning wondering if non-readers might be wanting a little more back-story.

I didn't need that backstory and frankly too much of it would have made things really confusing. An hour just isn't that long and I thought they did a good job of moving the action forward while balancing the need for exposition. Boardwalk Empire failed at that IMO by spending way too much time on exposition and historical trivia.

At least on television, I think it's damn near impossible to make a guy that pushed a ten-year old to his death anything but a bad guy.

Cool. Thanks for that POV.:D

If it made you queasy, I must warn that it isn't a one and done thing... it has lots of implications for the story going forward.

:D

Numbers aren't expected until tomorrow, once HBO can gather up all the replays and put the data together.

A minor rumor floating today (at TVBTN) was that the initial reports from the fast overnights were a bit underwhelming but I don't think that's enough to be concerned about. Given the investment, I figure a 2nd season is assured by anything short of outright bombtastic.

Early Ratings: Game of Thrones Is No Boardwalk Empire -- Vulture

Unofficials are 1.6, but it had much less promotion than Boardwalk Empire, and as Jon said, a 2nd season is pretty much guaranteed unless all flee in horror

FYI - from westeros.org forum
And a 1.6 premiere (even on the early numbers) is better than the S1 premiere of True Blood.

Did I miss the announcement then?

I loved the premier, but I get the sense this will go the way of Rome. Two seasons and then the costs don't end up justifying more seasons.

No - I don't think there's been a formal announcement - still just all speculation.

I think that's far from certain. They've apparently made a bundle off it internationally already (or are set to make a bundle). I'm going to be optimistic.

Tough call for me whether to continue watching. I've never read any of the books and this seems like it'll be awesome for fans of the series. Seems like a lot of characters to keep track of and I'm assuming that just gets worse as the series will go on. Seems like they can't go slow enough to get those never having read the books enough to really piece everything together.

Maybe...

Actually I daresay you've now met the vast majority of the characters that will be important in the first season.

And we here are happy to help you piece it together. :D

Yoinks, 43% lower than BE. That ain't good, might still be good enough (and probably is) but in that light I'm not quite as certain as I was yesterday.

Tell you what I believe it does, it makes it harder for anything similar to get produced. The numbers simply don't appear to be good enough to justify the expense.

You're the ratings-guru out there, but I have been reading a bunch and I'm not so sure that HBO was expecting it to do Boardwalk Empire #'s, considering that BE premiered at a different time of year, was promoted more, and had Scorcese directing the first episode, plus a Steve Buscemi as the main character.

You look at the unofficial numbers (which may still be revised upward of course), and it did the same premiere numbers as True Blood. BE also has dropped off massively I thought (the season finale was seen by less people than those who watched last night’s GOT premiere), so the key isn't necessarily premiere numbers...(trying to be an optimist here is all).

It's also done quite well internationally.

Media analyst Brad Adgate is reporting that the total viewer number for the premiere of Game of Thrones was 2.22 million. The median age was 44.2.

Meanwhile, initial news from the other side of the Pond is very good: Game of Thrones got highest ratings of all shows on Sky Atlantic so far.

Critical reaction and "pushing the envelope with quality drama" is almost important to HBO...

"The things I do for love"

Just watched the episode again, and I want to mention I might not have as much a problem with Cat's not wanting Ned to take the Hand's job. I started thinking about it, and really the change fits more with her character than her reaction in the book, and it might be why Martin signed off on it.

Cat never really shows anything even bordering on ambition for herself or family anywhere else in the books except at the begining in pushing Ned to take the job and letting Sansa betroth Joffery. Her motivations always comes from emotions, chiefly fear. She only shows bravery when she wants to protect her children, and she consistently shows she'd be just as happy if her kids lost titles, power, position, etc. if that meant they grew old and happy. So, maybe they are just letting be more consistent. She wouldn't want Ned, and most especially any of the kids, to go off into least bit of danger if she could help it. It fits more with what she does throughout the rest of the stories.

I totally agree with this assessment.

As for the whole ratings thing. It's not something I can really get too worked up about either way. I just hope, whatever the out come, they make a second or third season or whatever. Even if they don't make a second or third season, that's fine too.

There's really nothing I can do about the ratings, so why worry about it?

Great perspective on Cat, GrantDawg, that I completely agree with.

On the ratings front, I'm not as worried now knowing how much money HBO has made from this already on the international scene. I would love getting the whole series, of course, but getting any seasons at all was such a pipe dream that I'm just trying to enjoy the ride

Officially renewed by HBO for a 2nd season

Oh BE definitely tanked after the premiere. But, renewal or not, this sort of debut is not a major U.S. hit out of the box. And at a budget of between $50m-$60m for the first year, I just don't see similar productions getting the green light in the future w/out being successful both domestically and abroad.


Not as important as at least getting in the neighborhood of breaking even, don't kid yourself. They aren't in this to lose money any more than the next guy. The 2nd season seemed likely (as I mentioned) as long as they did okay, I would expect the budget to be somewhat smaller next year, as they try to get into the black (and beyond) over the longer haul.

Sweet!

Davos!

Stanis!

Jaqen H'ghar!

Brienne of Tarth!

HOT PIE!!!!!

They've apparently made about 50% of the budget back through overseas rights already though.

And they have to hope that DVD profits make up the rest.

Which could be likely. These types of shows usually do very well with respect to DVD sales.

You may be swaying me on Cat, GrantDawg. That being said...

And new subscriptions, and merchandise, and etc.

That's their business model. They don't do advertising (obviously), so it's not like that is unexpected.