HBO RENEWS GAME OF THRONES FOR THIRD SEASON

——–

First Episode Of The Second Season Has Already Grossed 8.3 Million Viewers

——–

            LOS ANGELES, April 10, 2012 – HBO has renewed GAME OF THRONES for a third season, it was announced today by Michael Lombardo, president, HBO Programming.

“Series creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss raised our expectations for the second season – and then surpassed them,” said Lombardo. “We are thrilled by all the viewer and media support we’ve received for the series, and can’t wait to see what Dan and David have in store for next season.”

Based on the bestselling fantasy book series by George R.R. Martin, GAME OF THRONES is an epic drama set in the world of Westeros, where ambitious men and women of both honor and ill-repute live in a land whose summers and winters can last years. The Emmy^®- and Golden Globe-winning fantasy series began its ten-episode second season Sunday, April 1 (9:00-10:00 p.m. ET/PT), with other episodes debuting subsequent Sundays at the same time.

Among the early critical praise for the second season, Newsday called GAME OF THRONES “the best show on television,” while the Los Angeles Times termed the series “a cinematic feast” and “masterful.” The Wall Street Journal hailed the show as “magnificent” and USA Today called it “near perfection.”

According to early data, GAME OF THRONES’ season two premiere has already accumulated a gross audience of 8.3 million viewers, and is on track to easily surpass the season one average of 9.3 million viewers.

Season two cast members include: Emmy^® and Golden Globe winner Peter Dinklage, Michelle Fairley, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Aidan Gillen, Iain Glen, Kit Harington, Richard Madden, Maisie Williams, Isaac Hempstead Wright, Sophie Turner, Jack Gleeson and Alfie Allen.

Season two credits: The executive producers of GAME OF THRONES are David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, Carolyn Strauss, Frank Doelger; co-executive producers, George R.R. Martin, Vanessa Taylor, Alan Taylor, Guymon Casady, Vince Gerardis; produced by Bernadette Caulfield.

Related articles

• ‘Game of Thrones’ ratings hold steady; is renewal coming? (examiner.com)
• Game Of Thrones: Season 2 Episode 2: The Night Lands – TV Review (screencrave.com)
• TV Review: Game of Thrones Season 1 (filmblerg.com)

What are you looking forward to most about season two?

Related articles

• Daenerys Targaryen ‘Game of Thrones’ Bust Coming Soon! (geek-news.mtv.com)
• ‘Game of Thrones’ Video Roundup: ‘Price of Our Sins’ Trailer, Character Profiles And ‘Weapons’ Featurette! (geek-news.mtv.com)

Back in 2007, a little game was released by Bioware. Toted as an action roleplaying game, Mass Effect was a game that not only let you change your own character, but the path of the storyline itself. Be a magnanimous hero or be a hard nosed, no BS rebel – it was up to you. Did I mention that you’re doing all of this in space?

I love this franchise. Despite whatever misgivings the general community may have about the tweaks that Bioware and/or EA have decided to make, the demo further convinced me that Mass Effect 3 is going to be a winner. Here are three reasons that I won’t be turning my XBox off for the next month or so, starting March 6th.

Minor spoilers after the cut.

1. Earth. Finally.

The journey as Shepard has taken us all over the galaxy – to gorgeous planets that we roamed in a gravity defying rover and those that we could only read about in the codex. Earth’s entry is curiously without detail, either for redundancy control or to keep us guessing. Now, all that time only reading about it in the papers, we’re finally seeing Earth. …right before it gets blown to hell. It’s like getting a call from an old friend right as they get into a car crash. Nothing gets your blood going like seeing entire continents go up in flames. Take Earth back? Hell yes.

Is the drama a little over the top? Of course. Shepard gets some choice one-liners about saving the galaxy and strikes a hero pose when she (or he) should be running for her life, the diplomats on Earth are predictably pigheaded about the arrival of the Reapers… but this is a space opera of the Bioware variety. A little melodrama is part of the fun.

2. Your choices take you in less obvious directions.

In the beginning of the demo, Shepard is faced with a child hiding in an air duct. With the world crashing down around you, you offer to save him – either with compassion or sternness. The games have always been about choices – do you let the Council live or die? Do you kick this guy out the window, or spare him? Do you throttle Conrad Verner with a rifle butt, or give him an autograph? Regardless of its magnitude, each outcome was something you controlled. In the demo for ME3, we see a slight change that I think is far more meaningful than being able to tug your alignment meter one way or the other: the ability to make choices that don’t matter.

In other games this would be a bad thing, and it’s often cited as an annoyance; in games like Dragon Age,  you make a decision to say or do something, get one line of dialogue that mildly reacts to your character, and then the story plows on its way. That’s the case far less often in Mass Effect, and it makes it that much more jarring when it does. Despite being a hero, sometimes there’s nothing you can do, no matter how hard you try.

Maybe this was a one-off decision by the writers, or something we’ll only see in the demo, but I like to think that the demo is showcasing only a taste of what it has to offer. If the storytelling continues in these more ambiguous ways, I think we’ll find the story much more rewarding, and surprising.

3. Multiplayer.

As if I wasn’t already going to be sinking 30+ hours into this game, Bioware’s added a ridiculously addictive multiplayer mode for me to sink my life into. At its core, it’s nothing new – we’ve all played games like Call of Duty‘s famous zombie mode, or Gears of War‘s hoarde mode. But we can all readily agree that an action RPG like Mass Effect isn’t the first place you’d look for a cooperative multiplayer mode on.

I was skeptical at first, but it works. Perks come not only in the form of usable items like medigel and different ammo types, but abilities – and that’s where the fun lies. I’m a big fan of charge and shockwave, myself, but with six different classes, there are all sorts of different ways for games to play out, particularly with different team compositions. I’ve already spent more time than is probably healthy in multiplayer mode, long after I completed the demo campaign. I expect more of the same once I’ve gotten the Long Service Medal achievement in the full game.

It’s true that I’m already a fan of the Mass Effect series – and that might make me a bit biased. But regardless of whatever misgivings I or the community might have about the changes in the third part of the trilogy, I think that there are good things ahead. We’ll find out on March 6th – and I’m sure that after some good time in front of the TV, I’ll have plenty more to say.

Related articles

• Mass Effect 3 Kinect Commands Revealed (geeky-gadgets.com)
• Could multiplayer be Mass Effect 3′s saving grace? (nightmaremode.net)
• Watch the First Two Missions From the ‘Mass Effect 3′ Demo (gamerant.com)

Rule #3 – Clean water is zombie-free water

Zombie down the well? You might want to find a new water source. One of the most gruesome scenes of the season was when the group found a water-logged zombie in Herschel’s well, nasty right? Contaminated water is a common concern after a disaster, zombie related or other. After an emergency, especially flooding, run-off containing livestock waste, human sewage, chemicals, and other contaminants can taint water used for drinking, cooking, or cleaning. Our suggestion to Rick and his crew – don’t drink the water! If you’re ever concerned about the quality of your water after a flood or other emergency check with local authorities about water safety, you can also make water safe by boiling, adding disinfectants, or filtering.

Click here to see the full blog from the CDC, along with their other ways to stay safe.

Related articles

• Infectious disease epidemiology and zombies [Aetiology] (scienceblogs.com)
• CDC warns Americans to prepare for zombie apocalypse (really) (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
• Zombies at Work (smallbiztrends.com)

We have seventeen – count them, seventeen new promotional pictures, with the characters we love to love and love to hate. Be warned, though: HERE (er, behind the cut) THERE BE SPOILERS.

Shown here, in order: Arya Stark, Balon Greyjoy, Bran Stark and Hodor, Brienne, Catelyn Stark, Cersei Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, Davos Seaworth, Joffrey Baratheon, Jon Snow, Mellisandre and Stannis Baratheon, Renly Baratheon, Robb Stark, Sansa Stark, Theon Greyjoy, and last but definitely not least, Tyrion Lannister.

Photos by Helen Sloan and Oliver Upton.

Related articles

• ‘Game of Thrones’ Season 2 Trailer: Will Women Fare Better This Season? (opinionessoftheworld.com)
• ‘Game of Thrones’ Trailer – A King, a Priest, and a Rich Man Walk Into a Bar… (slashfilm.com)

And how could we have been? Nearly a year since launch, and we’ve been reviews, a handful of editorials, and, if you’ve been particularly enterprising, a bunch of 140-character tweets. You know Lauren breathes and bleeds Game of Thrones and Anna loves enough British television to be naturalized, but we haven’t really let our hair down.

We’ve decided it’s time to change that. Less intense nitpicking over shows that we already clearly love, more content about those things. More sharing things that get us excited. More editorials about those things. More… well, just more, really.

Consider this our housewarming party – or the kegger that that one kid throws to get to know everyone, if you prefer. In the next couple of weeks, you can expect to see more about us, and maybe even a new face or two. What we definitely know is that if we have you here, we don’t want you bored. Come sit a spell. Hang out. Get to know us. If you come here for the reviews, don’t worry – we’ll still do those. But we’ve always envisioned this site as more than just a place for reviews, and we want to make good on that.

Welcome to the new and improved deadAWESOME. Enjoy your stay.

This New Year’s Day, the second series of Sherlock – once again, three ninety minute installments – will premiere on the BBC. Being the resident Anglophile, I’ve always had a thing for Sherlock Holmes. The lore, the ambiguity, the original short stories by Arthur Conan Doyle – throw in Steven Moffat and it was a recipe for addiction. And Sherlock, with its flawless cinematography, ingenious script, and classic British acting, lured me in like a moth to the flame.

Besides that, Sherlock managed to pique my interests far more than the 2009 Guy Richie film, which, despite its competent performances and undeniable Holmes-Watson chemistry, often times felt more like a facsimile of Sherlock Holmes, rather than a tribute. And no, I’m not one of those folks to wax on and on about the original canon, compare Cumberbatch’s sociopathic Sherlock to Doyle’s slightly more flamboyant Holmes, or search out the nods to the original stuff. I just know good drama when I see it.

Which leads me to the point: what makes Sherlock live up to the hype? And why the hell am I so excited for the second series?

Well, let’s start with the concept. A modern-day Sherlock Holmes really could have been a disaster if landed in the hands of, say, the CW. It’s no easy feat to take a Victorian-era duo and translate their chemistry and relationship into a 21^st century bromance, but Gatiss and Moffat manage the time jump perfectly. Best off, Sherlock isn’t simply two old friends sitting at a table and carrying on about the day. It’s a high octane mystery every step of the way, pulling viewers in from the very first frame.

Secondly, let’s talk Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, two actors that couldn’t be more opposite, yet share an undeniable rapport from the moment they meet on screen. It’s a visual delight to witness the two of them bounce back and forth like old friends, from Sherlock’s scathingly rude deductions to John’s honest yet understated humility. Plainly stated: they simply couldn’t be more Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. I’m even willing to bet that, had the stories been complete crap, the series still could have ridden on the backs of their performances.

Which leads me to the perfect segue… let’s talk the story. And boy, what a story it was. With the exception of the “The Blind Banker,” which paled in comparison to “A Study in Pink” and “The Great Game,” Sherlock is nearly flawless. Picture the greatest mystery you’ve ever read, set it in sexy, dark, dangerous, cosmopolitan London, cast two honest, hardworking actors, and you have this series.

The sheer dedication to keep it loyal to the canon, as well as artistically relevant in the 21^st century, makes for one of the most unique television series in a long while – which is a funny thing, given that Sherlock Holmes has been covered more times than “Let It Be.” Like the Beatles, Sherlock is integrally British to a fault, with all of its sassy humor, sly sexual undertones, and patience. The series’ ending, nearly ten whole minutes of terrifying exposition involving the confrontation of Sherlock, John, and their greatest enemy, is the greatest example of this.

So what makes me so excited for the next series? Well, without giving too much away, we’re promised even more canon, including the introduction of Ms. Irene Adler, which should bring a much missing stronger female presence to the series. Buzz from the BFI preview screening gives us a lot to hang on to, including both the resolution of the last series’ cliffhanger, as well as the series’ progression. Expect more from favorites such as Mycroft Holmes (Mark Gatiss), D.I. Lestrade (Rupert Graves), Mrs. Hudson (Una Stubs), and, of course, Jim Moriaty (Andrew Scott). And of course, expect even more wise cracks and awesome deducing from Sherlock Holmes, himself.

Last July, a modern-day version of Sherlock Holmes debuted on the BBC starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the consulting detective and Martin Freeman as his assistant, Dr. John Watson. Written by Doctor Who show runner Steven Moffat and actor and co-writer Mark Gatiss, Sherlock soon built up a cult audience across Britain, the United States, and elsewhere, garnering a slew of award wins and nominations, and securing Cumberbatch as a bona fide star.

This New Year’s Day, the second series of Sherlock – once again, three ninety minute installments – will premiere on the BBC. Being the resident Anglophile, I’ve always had a thing for Sherlock Holmes. The lore, the ambiguity, the original short stories by Arthur Conan Doyle – throw in Steven Moffat and it was a recipe for addiction. And Sherlock, with its flawless cinematography, ingenious script, and classic British acting, lured me in like a moth to the flame.

Besides that, Sherlock managed to pique my interests far more than the 2009 Guy Richie film, which, despite its competent performances and undeniable Holmes-Watson chemistry, often times felt more like a facsimile of Sherlock Holmes, rather than a tribute. And no, I’m not one of those folks to wax on and on about the original canon, compare Cumberbatch’s sociopathic Sherlock to Doyle’s slightly more flamboyant Holmes, or search out the nods to the original stuff. I just know good drama when I see it.

Which leads me to the point: what makes Sherlock live up to the hype? And why the hell am I so excited for the second series?

Well, let’s start with the concept. A modern-day Sherlock Holmes really could have been a disaster if landed in the hands of, say, the CW. It’s no easy feat to take a Victorian-era duo and translate their chemistry and relationship into a 21^st century bromance, but Gatiss and Moffat manage the time jump perfectly. Best off, Sherlock isn’t simply two old friends sitting at a table and carrying on about the day. It’s a high octane mystery every step of the way, pulling viewers in from the very first frame.

Secondly, let’s talk Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, two actors that couldn’t be more opposite, yet share an undeniable rapport from the moment they meet on screen. It’s a visual delight to witness the two of them bounce back and forth like old friends, from Sherlock’s scathingly rude deductions to John’s honest yet understated humility. Plainly stated: they simply couldn’t be more Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. I’m even willing to bet that, had the stories been complete crap, the series still could have ridden on the backs of their performances.

Which leads me to the perfect segue… let’s talk the story. And boy, what a story it was. With the exception of the “The Blind Banker,” which paled in comparison to “A Study in Pink” and “The Great Game,” Sherlock is nearly flawless. Picture the greatest mystery you’ve ever read, set it in sexy, dark, dangerous, cosmopolitan London, cast two honest, hardworking actors, and you have this series.

The sheer dedication to keep it loyal to the canon, as well as artistically relevant in the 21^st century, makes for one of the most unique television series in a long while – which is a funny thing, given that Sherlock Holmes has been covered more times than “Let It Be.” Like the Beatles, Sherlock is integrally British to a fault, with all of its sassy humor, sly sexual undertones, and patience. The series’ ending, nearly ten whole minutes of terrifying exposition involving the confrontation of Sherlock, John, and their greatest enemy, is the greatest example of this.

So what makes me so excited for the next series? Well, without giving too much away, we’re promised even more canon, including the introduction of Ms. Irene Adler, which should bring a much missing stronger female presence to the series. Buzz from the BFI preview screening gives us a lot to hang on to, including both the resolution of the last series’ cliffhanger, as well as the series’ progression. Expect more from favorites such as Mycroft Holmes (Mark Gatiss), D.I. Lestrade (Rupert Graves), Mrs. Hudson (Una Stubs), and, of course, Jim Moriaty (Andrew Scott).

As a diehard Sherlockian that’s waited a year and a half for any new action at 221B Baker Street, I’ll be waiting in bated breath.

Related articles

• Sherlock returns for second BBC series (guardian.co.uk)
• The case of the amazing reinvention: On set with the stars of TV’s Sherlock (independent.co.uk)
• Sherlocks like a nice girl, Holmes (thesun.co.uk)

Who/what are you looking forward to seeing most next season?

Before you ask yourself where I’ve been the last two years, let me explain. I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with Glee. Going back to the first season, I knew it existed and everyone was talking about it. Hell, even Lauren tried to get me to watch the pilot. But after sectionals, my interest sadly waned off, and just to add insult to injury, many of my close friends wrote the show off from the get-go.

Sure, I wont lie that I occasionally tapped my foot to The Warbler’s “Teenage Dream,” busted out like a primadonna to Lea Michele‘s “Don’t Rain on My Parade,” and even joined the harmony of Glee‘s abashedly cheesy anthem “Don’t Stop Believing.” But I never caught on to the compulsive wave of watching it week-after-week, and most of the storylines – teen pregnancies, boy drama, school bullying, more boy drama – never sparked a fire inside of me. So I turned a blind eye, got wrapped up in all my other shows, and ignored the Glee hype.

And then, for whatever reason in the world, whether it was impulse, curious whimsy, or self-pity, I decided to check out the third season. Having not even finished the first season, I barely knew anything about anyone, old and new characters alike. It wasn’t that I had any sour feelings toward the show. Sure, it may be the cool thing to hate it now, but I really didn’t hold any outward animosity. The truth was, despite my “crowd” and act of avoidance, I felt pretty ambivalent.

Relaxed and open-minded about the whole thing, I tuned into season three’s opener, “The Purple Piano Project.” And I’m not going to act like it was the most brilliant hour of TV I’ve seen all year, because it wasn’t. For one, Sugar Motta, a self-diagnosed Aspergers’ “patient,” may be one of the most irritating, offensive characters I’ve seen in years. That, and season three really doesn’t break any new ground. Sure, we’re getting West Side Story, some Irish dude, and the same old Glee club drama. Will it reinvent the wheel or be a cry for social change? No, but it doesn’t have to be.

At the end of the day, Glee is rock candy for the brain, providing maximum sweetness with little nutritional value. Skeptics can slice it and dice it any way they want it, but it doesn’t change one obvious fact: it’s fun, it wont hurt anyone, and it puts a smile on people’s faces… including mine. Sure, Glee has more than overstepped the original mark it intended to make, which was a tongue-in-cheek look at high school life and show choirs. But is its current state going to lead to the meltdown of popular culture as we know it? Of course not. Well, not any more than Boy Meets World or Dawson’s Creek did.

These days, as over-exposed as Glee may be, it still paves many an extra step for the underdog, whether you’re fat, gay, obnoxiously self-centered, or the perfect cheerleader on top of the social pyramid. And for a nerdy chick like me with a penchant for self-expression, I can’t knock that.

Related articles

• Glee: Season 3 Episode 4: Pot O’ Gold – TV Review (screencrave.com)
• ‘Glee’: Listen to ‘Let It Snow’ Here (aoltv.com)
• THEY KISSED – AGAIN! Promo For Next Week’s Glee Is Not To Be Missed! (perezhilton.com)

These are hardly new ideas. Secret warriors who fight to keep humanity safe from dangers they don’t know about, generations of families with the same, burgeoning responsibilities, monsters that walk among us – all of these are popular ideas in a modern fantasy setting. But I’ll stop dancing around the comparison I want to make and just get it out there: the show reminds me strongly of the CW‘s Supernatural from its direction to the premise, and perhaps even more obviously, ABC’s Once Upon a Time. It’s not necessarily a bad thing – I personally have always had a soft spot for good looking people fighting off the unknown – but they definitely tread familiar territory. I have yet to see what really makes Grimm stand out from the rest, and I don’t see it ending happily ever after.

Grimm has had a surprising amount of hype for a Friday night show, and it hasn’t really lived up to any of it. Our hero’s name is Nick Burckhardt, played by David Giuntoli, a cop with Clark Kent-esque good looks, a bland personality, and a bright future ahead of him with a wonderful girlfriend. In the pilot, a series of missing and dead girls leads him and his partner, Hank (Russell Hornsby), on the trail of the perpetrator.

As the premiere goes on, it becomes more and more apparent that things aren’t what they seem for poor Nick. Monstrous faces appear on passers-by. His aunt Marie is attacked by a creature wielding a scythe. As he gets deeper and deeper into the case of the missing girls, he discovers that one of the suspects is a blutbad – think werewolf but not – who helps him find the girl and identifies him as a Grimm.

Which tells us next to nothing, because the writers of the show seemed focused on finding the girl caught by the monster of the week more than establishing a foundation for the series. In scattered bits and pieces, we’re able to gather that Grimms are a line of human warriors, tasked with hunting down fairy tale creatures. Nick’s injured Aunt Marie tells him that their family has a terrible secret, gives him a key to a trailer filled with weaponry and journals documenting the legendary creatures, and mumbles a few odd sentences about what Nick must do. Nick spends a couple of scenes digging around the trailer late at night. The monsters react to him accordingly in conflicts, addressing him with a shocked “Grimm!” every time they see him, in case we’ve forgotten what he was. But none of it digs deep enough into Nick’s Deep Dark Family Secret to make me give a damn.

Viewers learn virtually nothing about Nick as a person. Sure, his parents are dead, he’s a cop, he has a girlfriend – but everything he does is unfortunately flat or purely reactionary. He sees things others don’t, but seems nonplussed by it. He reacts with expected disbelief when he finds out he’s speaking to a reformed werewolf blutbad – who doesn’t eat children. Even the final confrontation, when he finds the location of a missing girl, seems unimportant. He’s a character without much personality, or even a true sense of humor, and his partner doesn’t do much to improve affairs.

The monsters themselves aren’t much better, though the blutbad Eddie Monroe has the promise of being a not entirely terrible humorous sidekick. The lore, which is emphasized strongly by NBC as a critical part of the show, is barely explored; we learn that blutbads are the original Big Bad Wolves, but learn nothing about how they came to be, why Grimms fight their kind and other monsters, and so forth. If this were the midseason show for an established series, this would be par for the course, but when a show is just getting its sea legs, it’s inexcusable. I don’t know about you, but I need to know a show to care about it. I feel like I know nothing here.

Earlier, I drew the comparison between this show and Supernatural, as well as the obvious parallels with Once Upon a Time. Unlike either of these shows, Grimm seems to take itself entirely too seriously, on top of its numerous other flaws, particularly for a show that finds its basis in fairy tales – even the Grimm variety. The show was almost entirely without jokes, the cops without humor or charm. While this was never meant to be a feel-good show, it’s too light on the scares to be a true fantasy TV horror, so what is its place, exactly?

Consensus: It’s hard to really get a read on Grimm from this episode alone because… well, nothing really seems to happen that we haven’t seen already. The lead character is flatter than the pages fairy tales are printed on, the plot of the pilot is two-dimensional in its best parts, and it takes itself far too seriously. It had the potential to explore fairy tales in the same dark ways as its titular namesake, but does so without any finesse, grit, or real intelligence. I think I’ll be sticking to shows with more content and less pretty pictures.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Related articles

• ‘Grimm’ pilot: ‘This is no fairy tale… ‘ (popwatch.ew.com)
• ‘Grimm’ Premiere Recap: This is No Fairy Tale (buddytv.com)
• First Impressions: NBC’s Grimm – The Pilot (dreadcentral.com)