Game of Thrones on HBO

[lordscarlet]

With George R.R. Martin's announcement (as seen in the original book thread) that the pilot has been approved for filming by HBO, let's start this off with some rampant speculation about good casting. I'm sure they'll actually go with mostly unknowns; the cast will be too large to have more than 1 or 2 known actors. But, this is FOFC, we make stuff up all the time.

EDIT:

Some key characters in A Game of Thrones:

• Lord Eddard Stark
• Lady Catelyn Stark
• Sansa Stark
• Arya Stark
• Bran Stark
• Jon Snow
• Tyrion Lannister
• Lord Tywin Lannister
• Jaime Lannister
• Daenerys Targaryen
• King Robert Baratheon
• Theon Greyjoy
• Robb Stark
• Myrcella Baratheon
• Tommen Baratheon
• Joffrey Baratheon
• Lysa Arryn
• Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish
• Bronn
• Renly Baratheon
• Stannis Baratheon
• Maester Aemon
• Lord Command Mormont
• Khal Drogo
• Lord Jorah Mormont
• Viserys Targeryen

Shew. I'll stop there. Like I said, way too many characters to have big names.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to speculate on cast. The effects, costumes, sets, etc. will be straining the budget something fierce. If "Rome" had budget problems, this series' budget could be off the charts.

I guess they could use CGI a ton, but, unlike, "Rome", most of which took place in, well, Rome, there are just so many different locations that are so varied in look and feel. You have Winterfell, Kings Landing, the Wall, all that stuff out East with Dany and those are just the "main" locations in the books. (Beyond that is Dorne, Harenhal, The Aerie, Riverrun, The Twins, etc, etc.). It would be sweet to see those locations come to life, but I don't know how they will do it well and in a cost-effective manner.

HBO always seems to do a decent job of getting relatively unknown, yet extremely talented, actors for its shows. I really wasn't familiar with much of anyone (other than a few exceptions) who starred in "The Wire", "Rome", or "Deadwood" and they all had very solid casts. I would imagine that this series would be cast in a similar vein.

The only two "big name" actors I can think of off the top of my head that would be perfect would be Liam Neeson for Ned Stark (there's really no one of note who'd fit better for that role) and Peter Dinklage as Tyrion.

I always pictured Bryden Tully looking almost exactly like Sam Elliot, but he's a pretty minor character and I certainly wouldn't expect that casting. He's just one of the few characters in the books I had always matched up with an actor.

One problem they will encounter will be the fact that a lot of the main characters in these books are children. Children are notoriously hard to cast not only because there are so few good child actors, but because they age between seasons (see, e.g., Walt from "Lost"). I think they will just have to bite the bullet and make all of the kids a bit older and cast actors who appear younger than they are.

[lordscarlet]

That's the benefit of being on FOFC, we don't have a budget.

[lordscarlet]

They have put enough money into everything else, so I think they'll do a good job. I don't think we'll recognize any of the actors, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I've never read it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you all will be disappointed. I doubt that they're going to put as much money into this as it will need to do it right.

Hope I'm wrong, though.

The only way I will be disappointed is if they manage to make the series, it's really done well and then they end up having to cancel it due to money problems. Then I will be disappointed.

If they make it and it turns out to be very good, then so be it. It's not like a poor series is in any way going to tarnish the awesomness that is the series.

That said, I think it's pretty much impossible to translate these books into a successful series. I don't think it is so much a matter of money, though that will be play a big role (i.e., limited sets and the absence of most, if not all, of the battle scenes, many of which are super cool), but rather the books rely on too much subtly to really come across well on TV. I love the complexity of the books, the cast of thousands, etc. You're really asking a lot of your audience to keep track of everything.

What they will inevitibly end up doing is significantly shrinking down the cast of characters, combining multiple characters into one and cutting out certain character all together, and streamlining the plots. While one could easily argue Martin's plots could use some streamlining, there are just so many great moments and characters that will be necessarily lost that it may really take away some of what makes the series so enjoyable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is what I meant when I said disappointed. I'm sure that they will put 100% effort into it, but with something as massive as this unless the budgets are sky high for years and years, things are going to get cut. And with fans as huge as I've seen on this board many are likely to have parts that they think are crucial cut out.

I know there are a lot rabid fans out there. I probably love this series more than most. I've read/listened to all four books at least three times. Given how little I have left to listen to of "Feast", and the amount of leaves in my yard, I will probably be starting up "A Game of Thrones" yet again on iPod this weekend.

That said, any reasonable person has to accept that you can fit everything that takes place in a 700 page book in 12 episodes (or fewer). Some things are going to have to be cut, some characters are going to have to be written out and some things are going to be changed. That's a given. You just have to have faith that they make the right calls.

For example, look at the LOTR movies. If you include all the director's cuts, those films total around 8-9 hours in length. I don't know how many pages the entire trilogy is, but I doubt it's too much longer than 700 pages. Still, they had to cut scenes out, combine characters, write some out, make some dramatic changes. I thought almost everything they did worked (and, in fact, vastly improved on the original source). I've watched the "making of" DVDs where they explain what they did and why and it all made perfect sense.

Similar choices will have to be made in this series and they will be a lot more significant than what was done for LOTR. You just hope that they make the right choices and it all makes sense. (I have similar concerns about the upcoming "Watchmen" movie. Though I remain hopeful.)

One interesting wrinkle in all of this is that the series isn't done yet. Granted the books and TV series will be two completely different animals, but I wonder how much, if any, one could read into decisions made regarding the TV series. For example, if they decide to go without Brynden Tully or Sandor Clegane or whoever, does that mean that these characters are "disposable" enough that they will not really play a significant role in the upcoming books? I think that would be reading way too much into things, but it's still something to consider.

[lighthousekeeper]

Tyrion Lannister: the dude from Willow.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think GRRM will write the rest of the books based in any way upon the choices that are made for the TV series. *shrug*

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Tyrion Lannister: the dude from Willow.

Val Kilmer? Nah, I don't see it.

[DaddyTorgo]

dude i'm way stoked for this series. wayyyyyyyyyyy stoked

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think GRRM will write the rest of the books based in any way upon the choices that are made for the TV series. *shrug*

I was thinking more in the opposite direction. The choices that are made for the TV series could reflect or could give some indication what type of role, if any, certain characters will, or will not, play in the "end game" of the books.

Like I said, I think that would be reading way too much into things, but it's still something to consider.

[GrantDawg]

I am guessing they will definitely age the Stark children. Martin already said he wished he had started with them a little older. I think they'll have a hard time putting ten year olds in the situations they are put in the books.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I am guessing they will definitely age the Stark children. Martin already said he wished he had started with them a little older. I think they'll have a hard time putting ten year olds in the situations they are put in the books.

Agreed. I think that's one of the problems Martin is struggling with at the moment. Given he's scrapped his idea for a 5 year gap between books 3 and 4, he now has a bunch of characters who, presumably, will play a pretty major role in the series but are all pretty young and sort of a ways off from becoming capable.

[Galaril]

I am wondering if George Martin will have finished the series of books beofre the tv series gets to the end as slow as he writes his books in the series.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I am guessing they will definitely age the Stark children. Martin already said he wished he had started with them a little older. I think they'll have a hard time putting ten year olds in the situations they are put in the books.

I always just assumed they had a different time scale in the books, so someone who was written as a 10 year old was the equivalent of a 16 year old in our world.

[3ric]

Did anyone see that "Carcetti" from "The Wire" has been cast as Littlefinger?

[MrBug708]

Less than a week til it premiers. I saw that 720,000 people tuned in to watch the preview last week, hopefully that is a good sign

[MrBug708]

With the Game of Thrones set to air this coming week, it’s a new property that is certainly going to help boost HBO and their revenue. According to this piece over at The Hollywood Reporter, HBO is indicating that company is expecting to top $1 billion in international revenue this year, which is up 50% from what it was three years ago. And a good part of that is Game of Thrones, which is now the channels best selling series abroad ever, with episodes getting $2.5 million each, which is 50% more than the Soprano’s international pricing from a few years before.
“We have significantly accelerated our international thrust over the past few years,” said HBO CEO Bill Nelson. “We have broken through at a much, much higher level than in the past, and have found that our programming not only crosses geographical boundaries but cultural ones as well.”
The international market continues to grow in importance across many media markets and HBO is seeing that as a big win for them. Their subscriber rate in the US is essentially a non-growth area, having remained flat at 40 million or thereabouts for the last couple of years. On the international side, it’s reporting that it’s grown to more than 42 million subscribers, which is a significant increase from its 2008 numbers at 28 million. The original programming continues to be the selling point and the company is also indicating that a lot of its subscriber growth is coming because of its streaming service which they’re considering to be an essential and vital part of being a subscriber.

HBO looks to be doing well financially, which bodes well for the series lasting the whole seven books and forcing Martin to actually write the books

[MrBug708]

Nifty Cheat Sheet from the Times on teh characters

The Cheat Sheet: 'Game of Thrones' - latimes.com

First time I saw Tywin's character, I think he looks the part well

[DaddyTorgo]

I literally cannot wait for this damn show to premiere. Like...cannot wait.

I'm just glad that my week this week looks to be relatively "standard" with nothing unusual hopefully cropping up so that this weekend can get here sooner!!

[Thomkal]

<----doesn't have HBO.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

<----doesn't have HBO.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo.

Friends with HBO?

Barring that you know they'll get it out on BluRay and you can watch it then...assuming you're scrupulous and don't pirate it.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

<----doesn't have HBO.

Sign up for three months?

[cschex]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Sign up for three months?

That's what I've done, effective today. Can't emphasize enough how excited I am for this

[cougarfreak]

I ordered HBO this weekend for this exact reason.

[MrBug708]

And I bumped this thread over the otehr one since this was more specific to the tv show rather than the book series. Just need a thread title change

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo.

Friends with HBO?

Barring that you know they'll get it out on BluRay and you can watch it then...assuming you're scrupulous and don't pirate it.

We had HBO for a long time here, and almost never watched it, add that to financial difficulties, and we can't really justify the cost just for one show. So I'm mostly content to wait for the DVD to come out (with someone hopefully offering it a better price than the initial cost)

[wade moore]

I considered getting HBO just for this, but their pricing is absurd. I'm not paying $45 for one tv show.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I considered getting HBO just for this, but their pricing is absurd. I'm not paying $45 for one tv show.

+1

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I considered getting HBO just for this, but their pricing is absurd. I'm not paying $45 for one tv show.

What? Why so much? I thought it was about half that price...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by tyketime

What? Why so much? I thought it was about half that price...

$15/month, 3 months... $45...

[bronconick]

Netflix/someone will have it in a few months when they release it on DVD. I've had to wait a decade for half a book, I can wait half a year to watch the tv series.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Netflix/someone will have it in a few months when they release it on DVD. I've had to wait a decade for half a book, I can wait half a year to watch the tv series.

This

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Netflix/someone will have it in a few months when they release it on DVD. I've had to wait a decade for half a book, I can wait half a year to watch the tv series.

Yeah, just annoying that it will be DVD rather than streaming.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I loved the books and everything, but anytime I see preview, I can't help thinking that it looks just like any one of the low budget medieval movies you'd typically see on the SciFi channel. Or maybe highbrow Xena?

I don't get that at all. I think it looks fantastic. Much, much more like the quality of the LOTR movies than Xena.

[tyketime]

I saw this preview in the Philly paper:

By Ellen Gray
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News TV Critic
GAME OF THRONES. 9 p.m. Sunday, HBO. WINTER is coming.

And for once, it's not just TV weather-people who are breathless with excitement.

The motto of the House of Stark, whose members figure among the major players in George R.R. Martin's best-selling fantasy series "A Song of Ice and Fire," warning of an impending cold that will be much more than a snap, is also a rallying cry to Martin's fans, who've been waiting to see his Seven Kingdoms come to life in Sunday's premiere of HBO's new series "Game of Thrones."

I'm a straggler on the road to Westeros - as I write this, I'm only 462 pages, or a little more than halfway, into the series' first book, Game of Thrones - so I'm probably never going to be able to hold my own in a fanboy/girl discussion of the modern-fantasy genre, much of which until now has struck me as warmed-over Tolkien.

I think I can speak, though, to those HBO subscribers who wonder why the network that brought them "The Sopranos" and "Deadwood" and "The Wire" is trying to interest them in fictional kings and warlords, in direwolves and wildlings and other things that go bump in the night:

Because it can.

Because a great TV series, like a great book, opens up an unfamiliar world and accords it enough respect that we can come to see ourselves in strangers, be they middle-aged mobsters, Wild West saloon-keepers or West Baltimore drug dealers.
Or even Eddard Stark (Sean Bean), lord of Winterfell and the boyhood friend of King Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy), whose kingdom he helped win and which he must now help guard from threats without and within.

It's giving little away to say that there's a wicked queen (Lena Headey), a lecherous dwarf (Peter Dinklage, seemingly the only possible choice for a pivotal role that demands much, much more than mere lack of height) and a scheming knight (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), and that these three are siblings.

Or that Stark has some of the most interesting children to be seen on HBO since Meadow and A.J. Soprano.

There's also murder and intrigue and a considerable amount of sex (more about the sex later) and a story that in the six episodes I've seen sticks to Martin's book without feeling like a slavish re-enactment.

It helps that there's a story worth sticking to.

Unlike HBO's "True Blood," in which creator Alan Ball took a not-particularly-distinguished series about a telepath who attracts vampires and massaged it into something people who wouldn't be caught dead reading about the undead might be willing to watch, "Game of Thrones" is a show worth watching based on a book worth reading.

(So far, at least. Maybe I'll have made it through the fourth book of Martin's series by the time the long-awaited No. 5, A Dance with Dragons, is published July 12.)

"One incredible luxury that Dan [executive producer D.B. Weiss] and I have had working on this is that we're not making it up as we go along," executive producer David Benioff told reporters in January. "We're going into it knowing that we have an incredibly well-mapped-out, well-plotted story line that's going to continue for, if we're lucky, season after season, and George has already done so much of the work for us."

Martin, a longtime sci-fi and fantasy author who spent time in the trenches himself as a script writer - his TV credits include, not surprisingly, "Beauty and the Beast" - even wrote the eighth episode of "Games."

"It had been 10 years since I wrote a teleplay or a screenplay," Martin said, "so when the time came for me to sit down and do my script, 'Boy, I hope I still know how to do this.' What do you know? I did. The biggest challenge was actually mastering the new software, because screenwriting programs had changed."

"There's part of me that would love to be more involved, that would love to write several episodes per season and be there every day on the set with these guys. On the other hand, I still have the books to finish, and the books are 1,500 pages long and take me years, and I have a mob outside of my house with pitchforks and torches that are already very irritated about Book 5 being late, and after that, I have Books 6 and 7," he said. "I think I better stay where I am and finish the books because, of course, the real scary thing is if these guys [Benioff and Weiss] catch up with me."

This being HBO, that's not the only scary thing, of course.

I did promise to tell you about the sex, didn't I?

Parents who wonder whether their fantasy-mad kids are ready for a fleshed-out version of "Game of Thrones" that lingers longer than Martin tends to on his sex scenes (and is at least as graphic in the choreography of his often far-more-detailed descriptions of violence) should know that the customs of the country seem to run to rear-entry copulation (always a boon to premium cable, which likes to keep the breasts out front where everyone can see them), and that brothels get visited pretty regularly.

Much of this applies to other HBO series, but how many kids are demanding to watch, say, "Boardwalk Empire," a show about Atlantic City during Prohibition?

"Game of Thrones" isn't "Harry Potter," and no one involved is pretending it is.
As Benioff puts it, "George's fantasy is not a for-children fantasy. It's sexy and it's violent and it's brutal, and none of the characters are safe.

"And, truly, none of the characters. Characters that you might think are going to go on for six seasons meet an early end, and you think of all those shows that have done that kind of putting-character-in-jeopardy drama, who has done it best? It's been HBO in 'The Sopranos.' And one of the things that was so exciting about tuning in to 'The Sopranos' or 'The Wire' is you never knew who was going to get whacked. We're not a gangster show, but it's got elements of that within it."

So, winter is coming. If you're old enough to feel a chill at the thought, you're probably old enough for this bedtime story.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Netflix/someone will have it in a few months when they release it on DVD. I've had to wait a decade for half a book, I can wait half a year to watch the tv series.

That was my thought as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Cool note:

"All of the dogs we received were from rescues and some from private parties that felt that they couldn't deal with the dogs anymore, because they were rambunctious big dogs," said Warren.

The dogs were such a hit among the cast that 15-year-old Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa, adopted the dog who plays her direwolf, Lady, after production had wrapped.

Game of Thrones: 10 Secrets About HBO's Adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin - The Daily Beast

[MrBug708]

Martin agreed. "If I was in charge, I would split Storm of Swords into two seasons," he said. "I'd even make the second season a little longer. Have them give us 12 hours instead of 10… When you hit Storm of Swords, it's 500 pages longer than [the second book] in manuscript. If you don't divide that one into two seasons, then you are going to have to do some severe cutting of plots and subplots."

While I agree with the premise, I dismiss it as Martin wanting more time to write his books

[Honolulu_Blue]

The New York Times Review of this series is causing a bit of a sitr.

The review is pretty horrible written and borderline offensive.

FYI, TK, as a woman, who is alive, you shouldn't be watching this or reading this series.

‘Game of Thrones’ Begins Sunday on HBO - Review - NYTimes.com

Here is an excerpt:

"Like “The Tudors” and “The Borgias” on Showtime and the “Spartacus” series on Starz, “Game of Thrones,” is a costume-drama sexual hopscotch, even if it is more sophisticated than its predecessors. It says something about current American attitudes toward sex that with the exception of the lurid and awful “Californication,” nearly all eroticism on television is past tense. The imagined historical universe of “Game of Thrones” gives license for unhindered bed-jumping — here sibling intimacy is hardly confined to emotional exchange.

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."

[ISiddiqui]

FWIW, it appears the writer may have been a woman herself and is writing her impression (is Ginia a woman's name?)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The New York Times Review of this series is causing a bit of a sitr.

The review is pretty horrible written and borderline offensive.

FYI, TK, as a woman, who is alive, you shouldn't be watching this or reading this series.

‘Game of Thrones’ Begins Sunday on HBO - Review - NYTimes.com

Here is an excerpt:

"Like “The Tudors” and “The Borgias” on Showtime and the “Spartacus” series on Starz, “Game of Thrones,” is a costume-drama sexual hopscotch, even if it is more sophisticated than its predecessors. It says something about current American attitudes toward sex that with the exception of the lurid and awful “Californication,” nearly all eroticism on television is past tense. The imagined historical universe of “Game of Thrones” gives license for unhindered bed-jumping — here sibling intimacy is hardly confined to emotional exchange.

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."

What a crappy review from a hater. Every other review I've read has been overwhelmingly positive. The NYT is the last bastion of a dying institution (print newspaper) anyways.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interview: Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin - HitFix.com - (by Alan Sepinwall)

Review: HBOs Game of Thrones an epic, mature, well-crafted fantasy series - HitFix.com

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

FWIW, it appears the writer may have been a woman herself and is writing her impression (is Ginia a woman's name?)

Yes, it is a woman. I am not sure what difference that makes when she's making claims about "no woman alive would" watch or read. As a man, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable stating what "no man alive would" or would not do.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What a crappy review from a hater. Every other review I've read has been overwhelmingly positive. The NYT is the last bastion of a dying institution (print newspaper) anyways.

The review on Slate is actually quite a bit worse. The guy admits that he hates fantasy and decides to take the series to task because of it.

Here is the one from Slate and excerpt:

http://www.slate.com/id/2291119/

Thus does the reviewer feel daunted to face an old nemesis at a late hour. You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type. The reviewer happens to have an anti-weakness for that general sensibility and those armor-clad generic trappings. Hey, his loss, he knows, but, for instance, he cannot trust his taste to tell him if the Harry Potter books are written well. An undergraduate attempt to learn to read Middle English led to naps in multiple Chaucer seminars. He recalls the emotional pain he suffered one lunch period back in the Reagan Era—the pain of wasting the time experimenting with icosahedral dice. Once, bowing to peer pressure, he lyingly implied that he thought Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings to be in the same league as Lawrence of Arabia, when the honest answer was, "I don't care." Many, many years ago, before escaping the provinces, he was horribly unchivalrous in canceling a date at the last minute. Word was going around that the lady in question made like a serving wench at many a Renaissance Festival, and he called off the plans for their Olive Garden rendezvous. Sorry.



Since it hasn't been aired yet, I haven't seen this. It could be bad. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who gives the show a fair, honest review and actually critiques it legitimately. I have read some positive reviews and some less so, all of which were honest and well written.

[DaddyTorgo]

Writing a critical review about a show in genre that you admit (in the review!) that you're biased against is just stupid. I give that no weight at all, and I would presume any reader with two braincells to rub together would do the same.

As far as the woman above re: the sex, see Sepinwall's take on the sex:

There's also abundant violence (it's like a masterclass in beheading techniques) and sex (particularly in, but far from limited to, the scenes with Daenerys and her primitive new husband, played by Jason Momoa). It's an adult series in every possible way. But where a comparable show like Starz's new "Camelot" might throw in the nudity just as a lure to get people to watch, the sex scenes in "Game of Thrones" almost always have major narrative value, whether they're establishing a foreign culture or telling us more about a character who plays things close to the vest outside the bedroom.

[MrBug708]

HBO: Game of Thrones: Viewer's Guide

Pretty cool map and even better family lineage

[sabotai]

I've read a few bad reviews for the show, and they all are of the "I hate fantasy, therefore, I hate this" variety. I have yet to see a review from someone who likes fantasy and/or read and like the books that was negative.

[Shkspr]

While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first.

While I do not doubt there are women in this world who read books like Ms. Moore's, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up at her book club and specifically requested to read "Birds of America".

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by HB

FYI, TK, as a woman, who is alive, you shouldn't be watching this or reading this series.

But if I were a dead woman, it'd be OK.

Yeah, that review is nuts.

Funny, I've read the books and never thought of them as a vague global warming horror story. And nor do I think keeping track of the principals requires much skill. And while I've read The Hobbit and AGoT, I've never read the latest Lorrie Moore.

Bad writing, bad pesudo-journalism, giving a bad name to women.

/tk