Much like the review of Game of Thrones last season, the NY Times has once again proven to be out of touch, ignorant of how television works, and bigoted as they were before. Heck, that review displays a profound inability to decipher the obvious subtext behind Ned's death. It displays a basic inability to follow the plot of the show by describing Tyrion's role in Book 1 as "relatively minor," despite the fact that his character even had some episodes revolve around him (the Eyrie). It aims to criticize the show by saying that it should reduce itself to simple-minded protagonist-antagonist logic, which in itself, is something that only a lesser show would do.
They gush over stuff like Downton Abbey, but I could minimize that series just like they minimize Game of Thrones by stating that the only people who would find that show interesting are housewives moaning over the loss of their daytime soaps.
The best part of the review is that comments are disabled for that review, because they clearly know they are going to be panned for their opinion and they can't handle it.
