Buying Into The Hype

Hype surrounding various pieces of entertainment are, these days, almost more common than the actual entertainment. Hype about a movie, a new album, a TV show, a book...there's always something to be excited about before it's been released to the general public. The latest victim of hype (and while hype can be generally positive, I do think it's bad for any piece of entertainment) is HBO's newest drama, Game of Thrones. I talked a bit about the show in my previous post, but now that the show's aired its first episode to general praise, I wanted to talk a bit about the show and the surrounding media coverage.

First of all, to no one's surprise, the ratings for Game of Thrones were solid and respectable enough to garner it a second-season renewal. Some people are feigning shock at this news, but if you pay attention to the trends in past shows, this isn't surprising at all. Two days after Treme and Boardwalk Empire premiered, those shows got renewals for their second seasons. While the latter program had much more dominant ratings after one airing--its first night got 7.1 million viewers, whereas Game of Thrones got 4.2 million--a show like Treme only got 1.4 million viewers for its first night, and still got the renewal. And yet today, people are throwing around terms that make it sound like Thrones had far more meager ratings.

Of course, the stakes are different for Game of Thrones, a series that HBO has been marketing in various ways for the past six months or so. The show has, presumably, a built-in audience that's familiar with the source material (as a note, I've read the first book, and am reading the second currently), but even the book's fans may not have HBO. Also, where Treme can afford to premiere a new season with 1.4 million viewers, Game of Thrones is expected to do better, because it's costing HBO a relative fortune. So part of what frustrates me about the ratings comparisons with Boardwalk Empire, which certainly had a similar built-in interest and high costs, is that everyone is looking at the first numbers, not the last.

The first airing of the first episode of Boardwalk Empire got 4.8 million viewers, which is pretty impressive for a network that has 28-plus million subscribers. The first airing of that show's season finale garnered less than half that number. No one put up a fuss when this news came out, partly because the season finale's ratings didn't matter; the show had a second season on the way, so there was no hand-wringing among fans about whether or not the show would be on the bubble. But something that no one seems to acknowledge, unless they want to mock HBO, is that the first airing doesn't matter. It almost never matters. Yes, HBO has some genuine out-of-the-gate (in this case, referring to the first airing) hits, such as True Blood, which has tripled its audience since the first season, often getting somewhere around 7 million viewers as an average on Sunday nights. But if you have HBO, you know that it's not a big deal if you miss the new episode of True Blood on Sunday night, because it will air again. And again. And again. Also, you can watch it on demand. Or on HBO Go. One would assume that the executives at HBO have ways of finding out what those numbers are.

I mentioned above that there was a bit of mocking from the media about how HBO is making sure every one of its subscribers knows that Game of Thrones premiered this week. There have been 12 airings since Sunday night's inaugural episode, and most have scoffed at this frontal marketing attack. On the one hand, I get it. It's certainly stacking the deck in the network's favor. But on the other hand, why not? As some have pointed out, if you subscribe to HBO, it's likely that you don't forget the channel. Ordering a standard cable package sometimes means you forget what channels you have or don't have, but ordering something like a premium channel means you're likely aware of its existence in your cable box. Here's another note: this tactic HBO is using for Game of Thrones is not new. They used it recently...with Boardwalk Empire. And yet I don't remember the commentary being as loud (though the point was brought up then). The stakes are, of course, quite high for HBO, but they were high last year, too. Grumbling aside, though, it's satisfying to see the assumptions made by pretty much everybody (that the show would return for a sophomore session) confirmed today by the network.

But what of the program? Unsurprisingly, it's quite good. I can't speak to whether or not the show's any good if you haven't read the book, of course. I can understand that someone might be confused in some of the more minor details and character identifications of the pilot (two of the regulars, at least, have lines but aren't ever really identified, in terms of what their roles are related to other people), but in general, I think that the show's creators and head writers, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, did a great job of acclimating the audience to the world of Westeros within the span of an hour. While not everything is spelled out, that's a necessity: the first episode takes up the first 80 pages of the first book in a seven-book series. You can't get all the answers immediately.

After watching the pilot a second time, I'm warming up to the idea that it's on the same storytelling level as the pilot episode for Deadwood or The Wire, two of the crown jewels in HBO's cache. Though some critics, who may generally enjoy the program, have pointed out that the expository dialogue can sink some scenes, it doesn't happen here. Yes, there is exposition in this pilot (and a few lines are more blatant about it than others), but there's exposition in any television pilot. Sometimes, it can be dealt with efficiently, never calling attention to itself, but that's frequently very rare. I won't try to excuse the show for being expository just because that's how the book is; I just felt that there's never a point where the exposition is left hanging out in the open, ready to be slammed or snarked upon.

The scale of the show is immense without overdoing anything, which is a fine balance to create. Jumping from land to land to land within this fantasy world is enough of an imaginative challenge when you're reading the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R.R. Martin. It's another thing entirely to see those lands created to scale on your TV set. The near-tropical allure of King's Landing is palpable in the few minutes it's onscreen, as believable as the harsher climate of Winterfell, where the majority of the episode takes place. Pentos, a more exotic city on the harbor of the narrow sea, is both inviting and somewhat chilling. The production design, to me, doesn't end there; in some ways, casting this show is keeping in line with the show's sets. While the actors aren't props, they have to look the part especially when people have been holding images of what the characters should look like for nearly 15 years.

The cast is large, but only a few names are recognizable to most people, partly because some of the cast are young newcomers. Sean Bean, Mark Addy, and Peter Dinklage are the marquee stars here, and all are perfectly cast. Though only the latter gets to really let loose (Bean and Addy have a couple moments of levity, granted), all three are suited for their roles as Ned Stark, King Robert, and Tyrion Lannister. The standouts here, including those three, also include Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen, a shy, beautiful teenager who's being married off to a savage warlord so her power-mad brother can reclaim the throne; and Kit Harington, as Jon Snow, Ned's bastard son who wants to serve his kingdom at the Wall, the massive ice structure that keeps Westeros safe from the supposedly extinct White Walkers, who are very much alive and seem like thoughtless killing machines. Both Clarke and Harington exude a vulnerability that never topples into camp; Clarke especially has a difficult role, not just because of the purposeful objectification her character goes through in this episode, but because of her future arc. She seems more than capable of pulling it off.

That should be it, but there's one more thing I wanted to discuss about the show, and that's another aspect of the media reaction. As it goes with pre-hyped entertainment, there's a backlash to that hype. It happened with movies like Inception and Toy Story 3, and it's happened with Game of Thrones, which is somewhat fascinating because the praise for this show has been consistently positive, but not overwhelmingly so. Also, the good reviews aren't all universally saying the show is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The built-in audience is, true, trained a bit to react harshly against any kind of criticism, but for a while, it seemed like there'd be no harsh reviews to rail against. Enter Ginia Bellafante of the Grey Lady, the paper of record, the New York Times.

Have you ever noticed that, while the Times is appropriately lauded for its film criticism, the same doesn't go for its television coverage. This review is a great example of why we should scorn the newspaper's critics. In case it's not already clear, let me say this: having a negative opinion about anything is fine. Having a completely unjustified negative opinion is something else. A few folks, including HitFix's Daniel Fienberg, sarcastically praised Ms. Bellafante for writing a review of a new TV show without talking about its plot, characters, or actors, but there you go. The main issue with the review has been the section including this choice quote: "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."

In the same vein, while I do not doubt that there are men who watch Oprah Winfrey, I can honestly say that I have never met a man who does. So Oprah is bad. Right? That logic holds water, yeah? Of course it doesn't. More to the point, Ms. Bellafante, I couldn't care less what you think about the entire genre of fantasy if you're going to dismiss anything within that genre for existing. Her review generated appropriate amounts of ire from pretty much everywhere online, especially from women who were shocked to realize that they didn't like fantasy novels, even if they'd been reading them for years. Her response to this hubbub came today, and...well, it's another doozy.

Her condescension knows no bounds, as evidenced by this quote: "As I wrote in the review, I realize that there are women who love fantasy, but I don't know any and that is the truth: I don't know any. At the same time, I am sure that there are fantasy fans out there who may not know a single person who worships at the altar of quietly hewn domestic novels or celebrates the films of Nicole Holofcener or is engrossed by reruns of 'House.'" Again, Ms. Bellafante, I don't care if you do or don't know any woman (or anyone, for that matter) who likes fantasy novels or the genre. In the confines of a review, it doesn't matter who you know or don't know, or what the people you know or don't know like to read or watch. What matters is what you think; other people's thoughts shouldn't invade your criticism. Oh, and here's what: there is a possibility, Ms. Bellafante, minute as it may seem to you, that some people like movies directed by Nicole Holofcener AND the genre of fantasy. Please. Sit down. Don't get crazy at the mere idea I'm offering. But, seriously? Your pretensions are disturbing, not because they're unique (the fantasy genre has plenty of detractors), but because they're being published by the New York Times.

I'm OK with buying into the hype on Game of Thrones. I was OK with it when I watched and very much enjoyed the first season of Boardwalk Empire, but then, I wasn't disappointed to find that the show wasn't a carbon copy of The Sopranos. Sometimes, the hype lets you down, but there are rare times when the people behind a TV show, movie, book, or album get it right. In some ways, HBO has become the premier TV network for big TV, and big hype around big TV. (The preview of the new David Milch series Luck is the first bit of marketing for that show, but I'm ready for it now.) They're good at both, which is lucky for anyone who's willing to have an open mind and enjoy shows as diverse as those about Prohibition-era gangsters, or about vampires, or about curmudgeons, or even fantastical lords and ladies.