Game Of Thrones NY Times Controversy
Top Comments
All Comments (60)
-
scary start
-
I agree with wyrmqueen. How could anyone possibly cover more of a story in a 3hr movie, that couldn't be better covered in a 10hr show? To say otherwise is erroneous and just plain ignorant. The only quality a movie has over a show, would be the special effects. When it comes to a show like this one, that is the least concern of the audience that is watching for the story and complexities of it. I believe the author and producers understood this, and they made the best choice in my opinion.
-
Not so, wyrmqueen. Although they would lose some aspects that movie-makers deem unimportant (such as five pages of giving the background of a holdfast that I would care about but doesn't really fit in cinema. It's not like they're doing that in the series anyway). And slamballwolf, you're another one of THOSE kind of Youtube users. Funny how you can just give yourself away like that in just four ignorant words. Peace all
-
@Johng2200 Ugh no... a 10 hour season would be better adapting the books than a 3 hour movie.
-
Wow... The title to this video should be "Video Resume for a panel slot on The View."
-
you are fucking annoying
-
Wow. Just wow. I mean, do these WOMEN she keeps talking about read the novels?? THAT'S where the great story is... The HBO series does it justice- but isn't anything that couldn't have been done in making a movie of each book. Partly because the novels are so complex and descriptive that converting a 1200 pager (that'd be the 3rd one) into a almost three hour movie would be a cinch.
-
I'm sure the bloggosphere ripped her several new ones.
-
I sort of think that she just wants attention, and a good review gets less attention than a scalding one.
Kick her ass!
Realdude2011 10 months ago 32
Lol, go Roth!
maxsant74 10 months ago 23