[Book & TV Spoilers] Insightful interview with writer Bryan Cogman

[protar]

There's no one interpretation of the books, just go and peruse some of the forums. So just because D&D don't feel certain scenes aren't important or wouldn't translate onto the small screen doesn't mean that they want to purposely destroy your favorite books for money. You could probably make lots more money producing the next Spiderman remake.

There are indeed multiple interpretations of this story. That does not mean that you can think anything you want about it and be correct. Some things are up for debate, others are not and are explicitly spelled out for you. Whether or not Jon has a father figure for example is one of the things explicitly spelled out. He does (or did.). And yet D+D think he doesn't.

[kg1982]

There are indeed multiple interpretations of this story. That does not mean that you can think anything you want about it and be correct. Some things are up for debate, others are not and are explicitly spelled out for you. Whether or not Jon has a father figure for example is one of the things explicitly spelled out. He does (or did.). And yet D+D think he doesn't.

Jon Snow has had quite a few mentors in the books... I don't see how his time with Qhorin Halfhand is any more important than what he learns from Jeor, Aemon, or even Stannis. Changing up Jon's storyline in favor of a hilarious conversation with Ygritte really worked for me.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I think with some ingenuity they could have included Weasel Soup. My idea was to have it and the HOTU as the climax for E8, intercut with one another so that any of the budget consuming stuff can happen mostly off-screen. When I came up with this idea it took about a minute. So it's worrying that D+D can't come up with a creative option in 12 months.

Honest question: To what extent are you familiar with the process of film-making? Do you know what pre-production, production, and post-production entail? Logistically, Game of Thrones is easily one of the most ambitious and difficult programs ever produced for television, and it's size and complexity even dwarfs that of many feature films. You're seriously under-valuing the monumental task it is to bring this story to the screen, and the part D&D play in making it all happen. Or you just don't realize how difficult their job actually is.

[protar]

Jon Snow has had quite a few mentors in the books... I don't see how his time with Qhorin Halfhand is any more important than what he learns from Jeor, Aemon, or even Stannis. Changing up Jon's storyline in favor of a hilarious conversation with Ygritte really worked for me.

Firstly I was not refering to Qhorin I was refering to father figures in general and D+D's idea that Jon has none (which is obviously not true.).

Secondly I found those scenes to be absolutely godawful. I would've much prefered to see more of Qhorin, not just from a purist perpsective but also from an entertainment perspective.

[Guest]

Protar you seem very argumentative about this point. I was actually agreeing with you about D&D. But you come across as if you'd like to enroll them in a ASOIAF class taught by yourself. What gives?

[protar]

Honest question: To what extent are you familiar with the process of film-making? Do you know what pre-production, production, and post-production entail? Logistically, Game of Thrones is easily one of the most ambitious and difficult programs ever produced for television, and it's size and complexity even dwarfs that of many feature films. You're seriously under-valuing the monumental task it is to bring this story to the screen, and the part D&D play in making it all happen. Or you just don't realize how difficult their job actually is.

I am not an expert on the film industry no. That does not mean I cannot see the result in front of me and judge whether or not it is good or could be improved. I find it ridiculous when someone puts forth a perfectly good idea for how the show could've panned out and then an apologist just said "you're not a qualified TV show producer so therefore your ideas are invalid." a complete logical fallacy. Rather than simply saying I am incorrect explain how. How was my proposal not doable?

[protar]

Protar you seem very argumentative about this point. I was actually agreeing with you about D&D. But you come across as if you'd like to enroll them in a ASOIAF class taught by yourself. What gives?

I apologise if I came across as argumentative, I just get a bit worked up over this. But actually if Martin were to enroll them in an ASOIAF class, that would be excellent.

[Arya The Assassin]

1. They still could've developed a relationship with Robb and Jeyne. ...

Yes, but that's beside the point (he gave a reason for why they went the Robb-Talisa route).

2. But why exactly are they delaying this development? I see no reason for it to slow down. It's not like Arya's first kill would immediately transform her into a morally grey super-assassin child, no more than it did in the books

No, but it's a matter of timing and the weasel soup was left out for budgetary reasons. I do agree, however, that I was looking forward to the weasel soup, and that their rather undramatic escape from Harrenhal was a bit disappointing.

If they want to make the development of her character more gradual, then they should be including every step of that journey (or as many as possible.), not moving forwards in leaps and bounds the episode before the development is necessary.

Yes, of course, but we haven't gotten to that point yet in the TV series, and they're not bound to follow all of Arya's steps in the book (it's an adaptation, after all). The fact that we didn't see her first (deliberate) kill this season doesn't mean we're never going to witness it. And it doesn't mean they're trying to skip or undermine the significance of this event in terms of her character development. They will probably tie this 'milestone' to an event in season 3.

Don't get me wrong, though: Seeing Arya's first kill in this season would've been nice, but at least I know why the weasel soup was left out, and the interview sheds some light on the adaptation process and the decisions that were made.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I am not an expert on the film industry no. That does not mean I cannot see the result in front of me and judge whether or not it is good or could be improved. I find it ridiculous when someone puts forth a perfectly good idea for how the show could've panned out and then an apologist just said "you're not a qualified TV show producer so therefore your ideas are invalid." a complete logical fallacy. Rather than simply saying I am incorrect explain how. How was my proposal not doable?

I didn't ask if you were an expert, I asked what the extent of your knowledge about film-making was. When you're making a television show there are a million different things that need to be handled; location scouting, set builds, casting and scheduling the shoots for those actors; any CGI work that would be necessary; costuming and make-up; food services for the production staff, the actors, and the extras; traveling to and from sets and locations for the aforementioned and the needed equipment; etc. You know where the basis for all of this work (not to mention the pre-production and post-production work) comes from? The script. All of these things need to be accounted for once they are a part of a finalized script. I couldn't care less about how you feel about the changes, simply because I get the feeling that we'd never see eye to eye on that front. What does bother me is that you downplay the role of the two people who keep the ship afloat and then doubt their love for the source material when you essentially have no idea what their job entails and how difficult it is. G.R.R.M. is an amazing author, but "words are wind" - he can make everything as detailed and intricate and as massive as he likes, because there are no real logisitical concerns beyond the scope of the narrative, the world of Westeros, and the people who inabit it (obviously no small task, and the man is a genius, so I'm not trying to downplay his talents). D&D have to tackle those considerable obstacles head-on, while simultaneously working out the rest of the things I already mentioned.

[PatrickStormborn]

1. He does go somewhat into the reasons for these changes, but stops short of actually justifying the changes. For instance, he says that they changed Jeyne to Talisa because they wanted Robb to fall in love, rather than making a single grief-fueled mistake. He doesn't say why they thought this would make more compelling TV than what happened in the books, and he didn't say why Robb had to fall in love with a sassy foreign nurse.

2. Sorry, my mistake. Although to be honest this could be seen as further dodging the issues at hand. If he's talking about the moral ambiguity in Arya's character, surely he should mention her first assasination and it's absence? Why doesn't he? He says that they are delaying Arya's development on this front, but again, he doesn't say why?

3. Refer to point 1.

2. Erm, yes he does. He says that they had to slow down Arya's progression into a serial killer because they're splitting ASOS in two. So, in an attempt to please book readers by splitting ASOS, they've angered purists. They can't win. :)

[jlk7e]

In terms of people complaining about Talisa, I think they all need to go back and carefully read all of the chapters in the novels where Robb appears. In the books, Robb is a very young boy. He throws tantrums where he waves his sword around, for instance. He's very, very young, and the mistake he makes with Jeyne is the mistake of a young boy. Richard Madden is 26 years old, and the character of Robb has been considerably aged up as well. the basic childishness of book Robb's decision for marriage wouldn't have worked with a Robb played by Richard Madden. Did the Talisa story work? I'm not convinced it worked all that well, either, but I at least understand what they were trying to do, and why they felt they had to change the book.

[Ran]

Six episodes of no character development is not really a good result of "we have to slow her story down". If you have to slow it down, find something meaningful to replace it with. They didn't even try -- they just wrote some two-handers that were lovely but had nothing whatsoever meaningful to say about Arya's development after her learning her mantra of names

Someone -- D&D I expect -- got enamored of the Dance-Williams scene ideas, and so we get three of them. I recall writing after the second one, "Gosh, I hope they don't go to that well again," and of course they did.

I don't object to the idea that they didn't want her first meaningful, intentional killing to be a nameless, faceless guard, that they wanted to hold that. But they didn't convey anything of her journey that would get her in that place next season beyond, again, the mantra. Which was in ep 4.

[Arya The Assassin]

I am not an expert on the film industry no. That does not mean I cannot see the result in front of me and judge whether or not it is good or could be improved. I find it ridiculous when someone puts forth a perfectly good idea for how the show could've panned out and then an apologist just said "you're not a qualified TV show producer so therefore your ideas are invalid." a complete logical fallacy. Rather than simply saying I am incorrect explain how. How was my proposal not doable?

You're missing the point that Khal-a-bunga was trying to make: The problem is that you make it sound as if writing and producing this series is a trivial thing. You just wrote that you came up with an idea that took one minute, and you criticize D&D for not coming up with a more 'creative option' in 12 months.

You even claimed that D&D and Cogman weren't fans because they've said certain things that you didn't approve of. I actually find that disrespectful and a bit arrogant.

Your idea isn't the issue here either: The point is that although an idea might sound perfectly fine on paper and in theory, it might not work out that well in practice (or it may not work out at all). And a script has to ultimately submit to the realities of TV filmmaking.

Of course you're entitled to suggest ideas of your own, but it wouldn't hurt to try to see things more in perspective when it comes to realising those ideas on the screen, especially when you lack basic understanding of how filmmaking works (something you've even admitted yourself).

We've actually discussed this before, and I wrote:

But being a good writer doesn't necessarily mean that you're a good screenwriter, though :)

There are basically two factors or constraints that writers have to keep in mind when writing an adaptation for TV: Time and money. An entire season of GoT has under half the budget of a major 'Hollywood-movie', and each episode is usually shot/produced at a (much) faster rate compared to a feature film. One side-effect is that a screenwriter often has to simplify and condense the story and the characters in order to make everything fit inside the limited production time, budget and screentime (about 10 hours per season for GoT). It's no easy task to shuffle all these pieces around, especially when you consider the scope and complexity of the ASOIAF-series.

GRRM himself has said in interviews and on his audio commentary track that his first drafts had to be rejected and rewritten because they were too expensive to shoot or produce. Bryan Cogman faced the same challenges. Sometimes practical issues interfere with the screenplay as well: For example, in the screenplay, the Hound was supposed to tell Sansa about his facial scars, but for practical reasons they had to shoot the scene with Baelish instead. And the scene where Arya kills the stableboy was shot under hectic circumstances (which resulted in a very limited number of shots and angles), so it didn't turn out exactly the way it was written in the screenplay.

I'd actually recommend listening to some of the audio commentaries (by D&D and Cogman) on the Blu-Rays. It gives you a better idea of what kind of challenges the filmmakers have to face (another recommendation is to read filmmaking literature).

[Currawong]

2. Erm, yes he does. He says that they had to slow down Arya's progression into a serial killer because they're splitting ASOS in two. So, in an attempt to please book readers by splitting ASOS, they've angered purists. They can't win. :)

Exactly!

And judging by the ridiculous fuss that some people continue to make about the omission of weasel soup, you'd think they'd left out something important - you know, like Ned Stark's death or the battle of Blackwater. Honestly, when you stanbd back and look at the big picture (which D & D have to do), weasel soup was a teeny, weeny little "fun" aspect in the book, that has absolutely no critical relevance to the essential thrust of Arya's character arc. And because they didn't show the whole 'weasel' name thing from way back earlier in series 2, it would have made no sense at all to suddenly include it in one episode.

ETA:

Someone -- D&D I expect -- got enamored of the Dance-Williams scene ideas, and so we get three of them. I recall writing after the second one, "Gosh, I hope they don't go to that well again," and of course they did.

I suggest you have missed "what" those Arya / Tywin scenes were doing. Those scenes have a much wider relevance to the story than just Arya's own character arc - if you actually watch them, you will realise that they have multiple longer term purposes. Like giving us information about the Targaryans and their dragons (yet book fans are always complaining about how so much backstory is omitted!), or making Tywin himself into a real character, and thus setting some foundation for his later appearances. We don't really lose anything of Arya's essential character - she is still a kid who is ;living on the edge of danger and discovery, who has already killed one person herself and is willing to ask that three men be murdered!!

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

I won't debate Cogman's motives because I do probably think they were pure enough, and he's obviously following the party line here, but suffice to say, I could not disagree more vehemently with his analysis of Robb, and if his view is synonymous throughout the writing team, then they have all completely misunderstood both Robb himself and to an extent Ned.

[Currawong]

You know, if people all agreed on the interpretation of Hamlet and the title role's character, or believed that there was only one way to interpret and show the Ring Cycle, a lot of people over the years would be and have been unemployed! :D

[kg1982]

Firstly I was not refering to Qhorin I was refering to father figures in general and D+D's idea that Jon has none (which is obviously not true.).

Secondly I found those scenes to be absolutely godawful. I would've much prefered to see more of Qhorin, not just from a purist perpsective but also from an entertainment perspective.

1. I don't think that we're watching the same show...It's pretty clear that Jon has quite a few mentors and father figures- I'd say the relationship that they developed between Jeor and Jon is father-son like.

2. From a pure entertainment value, I thought Ygritte was more fun.

[Baelor Blackfyre]

I posted this in another forum, figured it belonged here as well.

And this was their chance to take a book series that pushes all the boundaries, into a TV show that pushes all the boundaries. It's what would take this series from being just good television or even great for that matter, but into best thing that has ever hit TV.

I like that review Westeros just posted, the one from Miodrag Zarković, in one part he said,

"Game of Thrones showrunners had the opportunity to create a symphony, but instead tried to make a rock song, and what they did produce at the end was a pop hit that lasted a summer."

It's a strong statement, and I think we will have to wait and see if it has become a "pop hit" or not. But what us "book purists" want is a symphony, because we know that it can become one.

Going into the 3rd season I think the showrunners and all the writers need to keep in mind one quote when deciding on the future of this show.

"Kill the boy and let the man be born."

[Arya The Assassin]

Six episodes of no character development is not really a good result of "we have to slow her story down". If you have to slow it down, find something meaningful to replace it with.

From my perspective, the character development in general hasn't been the strongest aspect of the show (1), so this doesn't only apply to Arya's character. However, it hasn't really bothered me that much either, because ultimately, I found Arya's scenes to be one of the most enjoyable this season (even though I did miss certain events here and there). One could discuss the merits of a scene in terms of 'meaningfulness', but if a scene can captivate me for some reason or another, I'm less concerned about whether there's a deeper meaning to it or not.

Someone -- D&D I expect -- got enamored of the Dance-Williams scene ideas, and so we get three of them. I recall writing after the second one, "Gosh, I hope they don't go to that well again," and of course they did.

I guess they did it to annoy you ;) (there are actually four scenes, BTW, although they didn't talk much in the last scene). I found these scenes to be both enjoyable (the dialogue and acting) and intruiging (the contrasts between Arya and Tywin, Tywin's behaviour and suspicion towards Arya, etc), I only wish there had been some kind of payoff in the end.

(1) It can't compete with the character depth of the book, but that's not what I'm expecting either. I'm enjoying the TV series primarily for its (own) plot, acting, dialogue and visuals.

[jlk7e]

And judging by the ridiculous fuss that some people continue to make about the omission of weasel soup, you'd think they'd left out something important - you know, like Ned Stark's death or the battle of Blackwater. Honestly, when you stanbd back and look at the big picture (which D & D have to do), weasel soup was a teeny, weeny little "fun" aspect in the book, that has absolutely no critical relevance to the essential thrust of Arya's character arc. And because they didn't show the whole 'weasel' name thing from way back earlier in series 2, it would have made no sense at all to suddenly include it in one episode.

I have no problem with the omission of weasel soup, but I don't understand when people make the "but she isn't called Weasel on the show, so it wouldn't make any sense!" claim. When people say "weasel soup," they're not talking about the name Weasel Soup. They're talking about Arya getting Jaqen to help her free the Northern prisoners in Harrenhal, and the juxtaposition of that effort with Vargo Hoat's treachery and Roose Bolton's takeover of Harrenhal. That's a fairly significant plot element that was removed, and it has nothing to do with whether it would make sense to call it "weasel soup." They had a number of reasons, of course, for not doing it, starting with the fact that Roose Bolton's role in the show has been quite different from in the books, and with the fact that they didn't want to bother with the Bloody Mummers until, apparently, next season. But it has nothing to do with the name "Weasel."