619 replies to this topic

[psim]

Yes, if that were all oft there wouldn't be much of a problem, but her age factors into other things as well. If she had already been 16, there would not have been any need to postpone her wedding with Joffrey for a few years, also some parts of the story of ACOK regarding her and Tyrion would have to be changed.

But it's probably not that difficult to think of another reason for these things. Maybe Ned wants to give their children a chance to get to know each other first (although it's not as if they had much of a choice...)

[Lady Blackfish]

If they were 16 it would look kind of bad that their parents hadn't arranged something for them already (guys can marry later, yes, but he's the crown prince and there probably should have been arrangements if girls of an age and proper station were available).  But I don't know if the TV audience will care much.

[King Nobody]

If Sansa's flowering is cut out then she will need to marry Joffrey sooner as it was the only thing that was keeping her from marrying him in the first place. This meens the Tyrells might not want to aid the Lannisters in the blackwater, Mace wants his daughter to be queen, it was easy enough for them to call off a betrothal when something better came along but I don't know if it would be proper for him to drop Sansa for Margaery once they are already married. This meens that Stannis may win the blackwater, Mace might ally with Robb instead of Joffrey, Joffrey probably won't die without the Tyrells there, unless Stannis does indeed win the blackwater. Pretty much if Sansa does not flower, everything changes.

[Halfhand]

King Nobody, on Nov 21 2008, 16.15, said:

If Sansa's flowering is cut out then she will need to marry Joffrey sooner as it was the only thing that was keeping her from marrying him in the first place.

As was already mentioned, the writers could easily devise another reason as to why Joff and Sansa do not get married immediately. This would be a small change and I think only the most hardcore of fans would have a problem with it. The general TV watching public would be none the wiser.

Edited by Halfhand, 21 November 2008 - 07:43 PM.

[Ran]

I don't know about the cutting of it, but I don't imagine it would pose a huge difficulty if they did. Just say that for whatever reason there's no intention to marry her before age X, and then she hits age X and people start talking about how Joffrey'll be marrying her soon, etc. A bit weak, I suppose, but if it's _just_ to preserve a scene, I don't really think it's that important.

That said, I'd prefer it if Sansa has her first period in the course of the show, to preserve things like her trying to burn the matress and her chat with Cersei with the great line about the portions of magic and ickiness in a woman's life.

[Padraig]

Quote

As was already mentioned, the writers could easily devise another reason as to why Joff and Sansa do not get married immediately.

Exactly.  I think some people lack imagination. :)  I'd go as far (completely changing the book! :P) as suggesting that Sansa could have already been betrothed to Joffrey if she was 16 at the beginning of the TV series.  Its a logical marriage considering how friendly Ned and Robert were.  Remember, Catelyn was betrothed to marry Brandon and she didn't race into that marriage either, even though she was 15 or 16 at the time IIRC.  Same with Lyanna herself.

Its quite believeable that Ned wanted Joffrey and Sansa to spend time with each other before they got married.  And once Ned was dead, there would be no rush to marry a rebels daughter.

Not that i'm saying that Sansa will be 16.  She could easily be younger also.  Either way, people shouldn't be constrained to think inside the box all the time. :)

And Sansa's flowering is not a major plot point.  If you want to be clever, let Arya have such a scene. ;)

Quote

Are D&D talking about aging the characters or the actors or both?????

If you read their post, it seems they are aging the characters.

And Aoede, maybe I wasn't totally clear but when I said that Bran shouldn't be turned into a 19 year old, I thought that people could infer that I believed that keeping people's general age was important.  My confusion was due to being unsure what you meant by "general age".  I explained my interpretation of it, which seems consistent enough with what GRRM has said.

[Stark Raving Mad Wolf]

I presume they'll add a few years to the characters. I like that for the teens (or else we'll have another Narnia with teens brandishing swords) and its better to not have too many kids but I cant imagine Bran for example being aged more than a few years.

[ipod]

Deviating from the aging issue here... (more concerned with acting caliber than prospective age/wide-eyed innocence/plot holes so no real complaints if ability tops age in the pilot. It's a trade-off. Though innocent-looking children being ravaged by Life does come across as a bit more tragic, I admit.)

I wanted to sign up for the boards to say Hi! and a heartfelt thanks to Benioff and Weiss for their efforts. :] Big hats off to them for tackling this huge series. Also wanted to drop another plea in the bucket for their consideration (heh!). I've seen a lot of posts talking about how realistic and bloody and sexy the books are and how HBO is the perfect network to translate that (agreed, agreed), but what I especially love about Martin's work is that juxtaposed to the grit and bile are also those moments of extraordinary beauty and majesty that is definitely characteristic of the fantasy genre. There are a lot of such moments with powerful imagery and descriptive writing in scenes and their respective locations (Winterfell! The Wall! The Eyrie! Anything that requires a helicopter view!) that give it that fantastic otherworldly feel. I'm hoping they won't get lost amidst (or cut in favor of) the backroom knife-handling politicking, conniving hand-rubbing in parlors, racy crypt sex scenes, or the slummy streets of, say, the Red Keep. ASoIaF is certainly not Rome or the Tudors. There is more wonder in it.

All the beautiful trappings of the fantasy genre balanced right next to the nitty-gritty is what I think makes Martin's stuff truly amazing in a distinctive way. I'm worried that in its attempts to make it as "serious" as it can, the TV adaptation might lose that overwhelming thrilling/epic/awesome scope and end up limiting the scope to mainly... the insides of buildings or something equally depressing, like house squabbling. I'm not saying it needs to be fairytale and lollipops (budget constraints and all, I know). Far from it. I'm just really hoping that HBO takes the fantasy aspect healthily into account, though I'm fairly certain I'm worrying for nothing. Plenty of people are gushing for the grounded realism half (as they should.. it's great). Here's me throwing my two-cent plea for the fantasy half, cuz life is indeed nasty, brutish and short in Martin's universe, but it has its moments of wonder, magic and beauty. It'd be pretty awesome to see that balance.

[Stark Raving Mad Wolf]

ipod, on Nov 22 2008, 14.18, said:

All the beautiful trappings of the fantasy genre balanced right next to the nitty-gritty is what I think makes Martin's stuff truly amazing in a distinctive way. I'm worried that in its attempts to make it as "serious" as it can, the TV adaptation might lose that overwhelming thrilling/epic/awesome scope and end up limiting the scope to mainly... the insides of buildings or something equally depressing, like house squabbling. I'm not saying it needs to be fairytale and lollipops (budget constraints and all, I know). Far from it. I'm just really hoping that HBO takes the fantasy aspect healthily into account, though I'm fairly certain I'm worrying for nothing. Plenty of people are gushing for the grounded realism half (as they should.. it's great). Here's me throwing my two-cent plea for the fantasy half, cuz life is indeed nasty, brutish and short in Martin's universe, but it has its moments of wonder, magic and beauty. It'd be pretty awesome to see that balance.

Spot on! Welcome to the board.

In order for this to be successful - there has to be a balance between the gritty, violent, sexy, trecherous aspects of the books with the fantasy, epic, beauty, etc aspects of Westeros.

I'd love to see sweeping views of the continent and cities themselves. Imagine Winterfell from above - or a panning shot of the Wall in all its awe inspiring wonder. So i know what you mean.

[Adelle Tully]

Aging the characters a bit shouldn't be too horrible (although I did have a bit of a pout at reading that they're going to age them). I just hope they don't go too far in the aging process and make Cersei look like she's maybe 30 and Joff look like he's in his 20's (for example). Also, they can always "Dawson" cast the characters if they have an inappropriate scene when they're much too young.

However, I have to agree with the person who asked them not to give in to the temptation to make Dany into a sizzling hot 20 something year old character.

As to Sansa's flowering and age, if they upped it to...say...15, it's still realistic for her not to have flowered as some flower as late as 16, especially if they've lived active lives.

[Valyrian-Steel]

Adelle Tully, on Nov 22 2008, 00.21, said:

Aging the characters a bit shouldn't be too horrible (although I did have a bit of a pout at reading that they're going to age them). I just hope they don't go too far in the aging process and make Cersei look like she's maybe 30 and Joff look like he's in his 20's (for example). Also, they can always "Dawson" cast the characters if they have an inappropriate scene when they're much too young.

However, I have to agree with the person who asked them not to give in to the temptation to make Dany into a sizzling hot 20 something year old character.

As to Sansa's flowering and age, if they upped it to...say...15, it's still realistic for her not to have flowered as some flower as late as 16, especially if they've lived active lives.

Exactly.

I don't really care that much about the ages of the Stark children, I probably always pictured thema  little older in my head anyways because of how they act.

However... Dany should NOT be a sexually confident seductress. That isn't her role, she needs to be (starting out anyways) naive, and vulnerable.

Now... you can't just pull that off if you're some hot blond sticking your chest out and wiggling your butt. Remember American Beauty? Towards the end Kevin Spacey and Mena Suvari were going to have sex, and Mena says it is her first time. What does Kevin say?  "Ya right." Because she acts more or less like a seductress the entire movie.

If you cast someone with more sex appeal than vulnerability as Dany then when she acts all vulnerable, shy, and naive, the audience is going to be saying "Ya right."

[Maester Joergensen]

I don´t think aging the children a bit would hurt. But please not to much. I don´t think Sansas and Danys characters would be realistic if they were to old. Innocence and cming of age, is an important part of their characters.
In the case of Dany, why not use a bodydouble for eventual nudity.

Edited by Maester Joergensen, 22 November 2008 - 12:09 PM.

[Padraig]

I don't see any reason why we should worry about Dany been turned into a 19 or 20 year old seductress. What would be the point of such a change?

I do agree that a certain amount of innocence is important for the younger characters.  But while age is importance, a bigger factor IMO was who they were.  Sansa was overly protected in Winterfell and Dany was a Targaryen.  Its only when Sansa was taken to KL that she began to get a taste of the cruelty of life.  And similarly for Dany when she was married off.

At the same time, Ned was a bit innocent also, and he was well into his 30s. :P

[Venardhi]

Ned wasn't innocent, he just didn't care about the game. Naive perhaps, overconfident, but not innocent.

[Padraig]

Naive, innocent...it doesn't matter, I loved Ned. :)

[feyrband]

Padraig, on Nov 22 2008, 19.27, said:

Naive, innocent...it doesn't matter, I loved Ned. :)

and who didnt? i think thats my biggest concern of the series if will you fall in love with all of the starks like in the books? without solid starks, and that goes for each one of them, i think its hard to really get into the characters early. and i dont mean to take away from the importance of the complexity of the other characters, just find the starks most important for that hook.

[moirne]

David and Dan, I think it's great that you're getting involved with the fans :) It's very flattering that you come on messageboards to look at casting. Thank you for reaching out to us, I know both of you will do an amazing job on the series!

[Kid Charlemagne]

Hey, D&D, nice of you to communicate with the fans. Welcome to the boards!

My thoughts:
HBO know their shit. While fans of a series will mostly be well-meaning in their advice, most people who are involved enough to post on a dedicated message board are bound to have rather strong geeky tendencies. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but I sure don't want to see people who run around in the woods playing LARP or recreate Star Wars scenes have any say whatsoever in any part of the production of this series. As an example, loads of people on this board seem to be of the opinion that Buffy was a great tv series. This bewilders and bemuses me, and if this turned out to be anything close to that extremely cheesy and poorly acted (and written) pap, I for one would not watch more than one episode.

Enough ranting? No. I would much rather see good actors than actors that are the right age (regarding the kids). With very, very few exceptions, child actors are painful to watch, and can completely ruin the immersion of the viewer (in this case, me). As I also generally think the "child POVs" are the weakest of the series, I wouldn't mind seeing most of them aged a bit. I would rather see Sansa well acted by a girl some years older than she is in the books than ineptly portrayed by some girl who happens to be the right age.

I would love to see original early music used in the scoring of this series. Medieval and Renaissance music has a rich array of works that would go beautifully with the imagery of the books, without ruining the suspension of disbelief. HBO seems to be doing good with soundtracks as well, though, so I'm not too worried.

I guess all that's left to say is good luck. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to try and fit everything in the books into a tv series. Some major characters and events will have to be cut, as far as I can comprehend, and that must be an ungrateful job. Some people are gonna be angry no matter what. I sure am glad that it is HBO who have picked up the series and that GRRM have not had to compromise on that. The adaptation couldn't have been in better hands, in my opinion.

Buona Ventura!

[Aoede]

Erzulie the Unruly, on Nov 23 2008, 20.48, said:

Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but I sure don't want to see people who run around in the woods playing LARP or recreate Star Wars scenes have any say whatsoever in any part of the production of this series.

Excuse me?

Geek: (from Wiktionary) An expert in a technical field, particularly to do with computers; A person intensely interested in a particular field or hobby, generally at the expense of broader social interaction. Example: Most famous actors are really theater geeks at heart.

You WANT geeks - people who are intensely interested in the story they're telling, in the medium they're using to tell it. I will assume that what you wrote was a product of ignorance and not of the intolerant 20th-century mindset that still proliferates today.

Quote

Enough ranting? No. I would much rather see good actors than actors that are the right age (regarding the kids). With very, very few exceptions, child actors are painful to watch, and can completely ruin the immersion of the viewer (in this case, me). As I also generally think the "child POVs" are the weakest of the series, I wouldn't mind seeing most of them aged a bit. I would rather see Sansa well acted by a girl some years older than she is in the books than ineptly portrayed by some girl who happens to be the right age.

The issue isn't the age of the actor, it's the age of the character. In corollary with that, the actor merely needs to look youthful enough (or OLD enough) not to strain credulity.

Edited by Aoede, 23 November 2008 - 10:17 PM.

[Wargonaut]

Ran, on Nov 21 2008, 19.33, said:

That said, I'd prefer it if Sansa has her first period in the course of the show, to preserve things like her trying to burn the matress and her chat with Cersei with the great line about the portions of magic and ickiness in a woman's life.

With all this talk of flowering and marriage, we have to remember that this is a world full of wargs, dragons, magic, and seasons that last years at a time.  Who's to say that if a winter can last 10 years, that a girl in this world doesn't reach her "flowering" until age 17 or something?  I don't think the whole "flowering" thing is even necessary or important, but if it is - you can easily push back the age of "womanhood."  

I felt compelled to age the characters in my head to make things a little easier to stomach, and it didn't seem to matter to me.

On that same note, who's to say that it isn't common in this world to wait until 17, 18 or even 20 to wed or even betroth the children?  Maybe it's not they way they did things in the books, but I think this could be an easy truth to present on the TV series.

Edited by Wargonaut, 23 November 2008 - 09:47 PM.