Dragonstoned Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yeah can the hyperbole and putting words in GRRM's mouth stop. The show isn't as good as it could be but it is still damn good and could be far, far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebevan91 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 They're hardly "ruining" the books anyways. Last I checked, you can go open your books and things will be as they always were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 They're hardly "ruining" the books anyways. Last I checked, you can go open your books and things will be as they always were. "They're ruining it" is the oldest complaint in the history of adaptations, spin-offs, and re-imaginings. I sincerely believe you can hardly find a single example of the aforementioned where a significant (and LOUD) part of fandom isn't engaged in ritualistic witch hunts and chest-thumping contests of True-Wayism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newstar Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 "They're ruining it" is the oldest complaint in the history of adaptations, spin-offs, and re-imaginings. I sincerely believe you can hardly find a single example of the aforementioned where a significant (and LOUD) part of fandom isn't engaged in ritualistic witch hunts and chest-thumping contests of True-Wayism. Everyone knows that the only true measure of the purity of one's fandom is the level of unadulterated, white-hot rage one directs at any adaptation of the work in question. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram McDrogon Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 D&D remind me so much of Lindelof and Cuse, the powers behind another tv show called Lost. I loved that show but its last season left me so bitter and disappointed, and funny thing is George was also a fan and commented on its pathetic ending. My point here is that I hope GOT doesn't become the poop on my doorstep by the time it ends... To be fair, we don't know yet if GRRM is going to provide a good ending either. I sure hope he does, but endings are really hard, and if anything right now it's GRRM who's more similar to Lindelof and Cuse as of Lost circa season 4 - I'm really impressed with how it's gone so far, and I love what's on display, but I have no idea how they're going to stick the landing and I'm taking it on faith that they've got a good plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Everyone knows that the only true measure of the purity of one's fandom is the level of unadulterated, white-hot rage one directs at any adaptation of the work in question. :D Sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 To be fair, we don't know yet if GRRM is going to provide a good ending either. I sure hope he does, but endings are really hard, and if anything right now it's GRRM who's more similar to Lindelof and Cuse as of Lost circa season 4 - I'm really impressed with how it's gone so far, and I love what's on display, but I have no idea how they're going to stick the landing and I'm taking it on faith that they've got a good plan. For sure, for sure. But If I were a a betting man, I'd bet on Mr Martin. And reading my previous post now, I realize how it seems like I think that the show is being ruined. Well, it's not, at least not yet, but I can almost smell its decay during season 5,6... Then again it will hardly be all D&D's fault considering that AFFC and ADWD are practically unfilmable. I guess Ran won't or can't answer the question for whatever reason about GRRM's veto power, but it would be nice to put things into perspective considering some of the choices that D&D made in the show. p.s. on topic question: Why did the old production designer leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 For sure, for sure. But If I were a a betting man, I'd bet on Mr Martin. And reading my previous post now, I realize how it seems like I think that the show is being ruined. Well, it's not, at least not yet, but I can almost smell its decay during season 5,6... Then again it will hardly be all D&D's fault considering that AFFC and ADWD are practically unfilmable. I guess Ran won't or can't answer the question for whatever reason about GRRM's veto power, but it would be nice to put things into perspective considering some of the choices that D&D made in the show. p.s. on topic question: Why did the old production designer leave? Could you elaborate on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Could you elaborate on that? Well, strictly from a book purist POV, these two are just not filmable as they are. Meaning; that after season 4 ends it would be a suicide for HBO to film first AFFC, then ADWD, so they will have to combine them and condense them into one season. Which means a lot of the fat from the books will have to be cut, and these two compared to the first three books have a lot of fat. Which means book purists that watch the show and criticize it on the how faithful it is to the source material merit, will not be pleased. Considering how D&D like to amp up the female nudity, Shaes, Ros's and Pod's cock being the best thing that happened to Westeros stuff, similar endeavors coupled with the before mentioned heavy cutting of the book material won't sit well with a certain group of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Han Snow, apparently her husband was arrested or something. That's just hearsay but she doesn't have any upcoming projects either. Maybe she retired? Or got a higher-paying gig. EDIT: Also, if indeed D and D are motivated by their love of nudity (I don't think they are in particular, I think that's more HBO's priority) then they will very likely include Dorne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Well, strictly from a book purist POV, these two are just not filmable as they are. Meaning; that after season 4 ends it would be a suicide for HBO to film first AFFC, then ADWD, so they will have to combine them and condense them into one season. Which means a lot of the fat from the books will have to be cut, and these two compared to the first three books have a lot of fat. Which means book purists that watch the show and criticize it on the how faithful it is to the source material merit, will not be pleased. Considering how D&D like to amp up the female nudity, Shaes, Ros's and Pod's cock being the best thing that happened to Westeros stuff, similar endeavors coupled with the before mentioned heavy cutting of the book material won't sit well with a certain group of fans. That doesn't mean they are "unfilmable", it just means that there would have to be some changes and that they would combine the two books chronologically. No book is "filmable as it is", since books are not film/TV scripts. The TV show does not have a voice giving us narration from the POV of various characters, so naturally there are always going to be changes, that's why it's called an adaptation. As WeddinGuest said on another forum, regarding the whining of some Hunger Games fans over the book/film changes (truly minor ones in that case), movies (and TV shows) are not books on tape with pictures. Furthermore, anyone who knew that a season of GoT will have 10 hour long episodes and that a season would (most of the time) roughly be the equivalent of one book, had to know that a lot of "fat" would be cut in the adaptation, i.e. you can't have every scene, every minor character and storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newstar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 That doesn't mean they are "unfilmable", it just means that there would have to be some changes and that they would combine the two books chronologically. No book is "filmable as it is", since books are not film/TV scripts. The TV show does not have a voice giving us narration from the POV of various characters, so naturally there are always going to be changes, that's why it's called an adaptation. Eh, the mere fact that something can technically be adapted if changes are made for TV/film doesn't mean that the source work is actually filmable; to define "filmable" as "technically capable of being adapted if changes are made" as you seem to suggest seems a bit obtuse. The Great Gatsby is a great example of an unfilmable novel which has been adapted for the screen. The mere fact that those adaptations exist doesn't disprove that the novel is filmable; rather, those adaptations demonstrate how essentially unfilmable the novel is. If one can only adapt a work for TV/film by doing such violence to the original work as to render it virtually unrecognizable or by stripping away elements that lie at the core of the work, that work might be technically capable of adaptation for the screen, but it's not really filmable, now, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Eh, the mere fact that something can technically be adapted if changes are made for TV/film doesn't mean that the source work is actually filmable; to define "filmable" as "technically capable of being adapted if changes are made" as you seem to suggest seems a bit obtuse. The Great Gatsby is a great example of an unfilmable novel which has been adapted for the screen. The mere fact that those adaptations exist doesn't disprove that the novel is filmable; rather, those adaptations demonstrate how essentially unfilmable the novel is. If one can only adapt a work for TV/film by doing such violence to the original work as to render it virtually unrecognizable or by stripping away elements that lie at the core of the work, that work might be technically capable of adaptation for the screen, but it's not really filmable, now, is it? Who the heck mentioned "doing such violence to the original work as to render it virtually unrecognizable or by stripping away elements that lie at the core of the work"? It seems that you are the one who's being obtuse here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newstar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Who the heck mentioned "doing such violence to the original work as to render it virtually unrecognizable or by stripping away elements that lie at the core of the work"? It seems that you are the one who's being obtuse here. Because you made the rather odd suggestion that the mere fact that a work can be technically adapted for the screen if changes are made means it cannot be considered unfilmable. Seems rather wrongheaded to me, and, again, obtuse. It's not rocket science to imagine why someone might consider AFFC and ADWD unfilmable, even if D&D are perfectly capable of cranking out something for HBO that bears some sort of vague resemblance to the source novels, and it seems odd to me that you have such difficulty with the idea. Is it really such a mystery? Is it really so difficult for you to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Because you made the rather odd suggestion that the mere fact that a work can be technically adapted for the screen if changes are made means it cannot be considered unfilmable. Seems rather wrongheaded to me, and, again, obtuse. No, I didn't, but it seems to me that you are being wrongheaded and again, obtuse, by deliberately misreading my post, or by concluding that any adaptation of a literary work that doesn't include every scene in it, word-by-word, with the voicever narrating every thought of the POV character, "does such violence to the original work etc" - in other words, that movies and TV shows based on books should be, essentially, books on tape with pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.