343 replies to this topic

[protar]

AegonTheUnlikely, on 09 June 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

1.  We don't, really- as far as we know.  There are a bunch of cities in Essos, it may be they are planning on cutting/condensing that.  If that means 2 cities in Slaver's Bay, with the Volantene being Dany's primary antagonist after her rise to power there, then it might make sense to start introducing that now.  Without knowing how the showrunners plan to deal with Essos, it's all conjecture to this point.

2.  Agreed, for the most part.  Robb being more affirmative makes him a less sympathetic character, as far as traditional tragedy goes.  I think they probably decided to go that route because in making Robb a more visible character, they need the audience to relate more to him.  As a result, they want the [modern] audience to identify with the love v. duty conflict, and they seek to develop in the viewer a greater hope they True Love Will Prevail.  Personally, I don't think the Red Wedding is any less significant for being the result of a mistake of passion, as opposed to a mistake borne of grief.

3.  I also would have preferred that.  But, economy of story is huge in film.  George can throw an extra page in if he needs, the show only has so many minutes per episode, and so many episodes per season, to convey as much information as they can.  Even an oblique reference to the Westerling's possible involvement would necessitate: A)  The rest of the Westerlings as cast-members (father, mother, several younger brothers to serve as squires, if I recall), and sufficient background/exposition on the family At least one scene of mother Westerling subtly slipping Jeyne "something" in some tea, C) A scene where the audience is given enough information to know what was given Jeyne (probably post-RW), and D) a scene with Tywin granting them their reward.  Without those necessary elements, the reality of the collusion is vague at best.  I suspect they either need to make it a clear and important enough part of the plot to dedicate the screen time to it, or cut it and simplify.

I'm willing to bet that ultimately they made the change to Talisa simply to avoid having to cast the rest of her family, and find a castle to call The Crag.  I actually agree it'd be nice if they had been a bit more faithful to Robb's Western Campaign, but I don't have the problems other do with it, I suppose.

Well if worst came to worse they could simply have cut the Westerling involvement in the RW altogether. And really the only other person they'd need to cast would be Sybelle Westerling and perhaps a couple of featured extras. The Crag wouldn't be a problem if they just showed the inside, because as I already said, sets can be re-used but made to look sufficiently different that you can't tell.

Khal Pono, on 09 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

oh boy.... do you really mean that?

You're essentially saying that the books are so darn good (and they are good, of course) that any old producer or director could take the source material and spin them into a show as good as GoT, so long as he/she follows the books.

D&D have no great talent of their own?  everything good about the show comes from the books?  give me a break. you're really minimizing what they bring to the table.

how about the actors? the music? the costumes? the stunts? the FX? does everything good about their contributions come directly from the pages of the book as well.

i do actually agree that some of the changes are inexplicable and frustrating, but I would never say that the TV show in and of itself is less than superb and that the creators of the show are less than wildly talented

All of those things have been great. So far as I'm aware though D+D did not play all of the roles in the show, they did not compose the music, design the costumes or the sets or make the FX. Obviously not anyone could make the show, D+D aren't completely incompetent. I'll even concede that they have had a few successes in making book deviations -most notably Theon's arc (until the end anyway.) - but it's been too hit and miss for me to give them much credit.

Edited by protar, 09 June 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Khal Pono]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

All of those things have been great. So far as I'm aware though D+D did not play all of the roles in the show, they did not compose the music, design the costumes or the sets or make the FX. Obviously not anyone could make the show, D+D aren't completely incompetent. I'll even concede that they have had a few successes in making book deviations -most notably Theon's arc (until the end anyway.) - but it's been too hit and miss for me to give them much credit.

Well, at the very least D&D hired and supervise all those great people.  It takes strong and talented leader to leader a disciplined and effective army, as it were.  I'm also a fan of their writing.

Spike Lee's The 25th Hour, by the way, has been one of my favorite movies since years before I heard of Game of Thrones

[protar]

Khal Pono, on 09 June 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Well, at the very least D&D hired and supervise all those great people.  It takes strong and talented leader to leader a disciplined and effective army, as it were.  I'm also a fan of their writing.

Spike Lee's The 25th Hour, by the way, has been one of my favorite movies since years before I heard of Game of Thrones

Just because one can recognise and hire talent, it doesn't mean you are talented yourself.

I know nothing of D+D outside GOT. But it's irrelevant anyway. Even if they had produced an amazing movie at some point in their career, it wouldn't make any difference to the quality of GOT, which almost consistently drops when deviating from the books imo.

[Arya The Assassin]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

Not a particularly informative interview if you look below the surface. Cogman talks about the changes they made from the books but he doesn't really explain them. ....

He doesn't only talk about the changes, he talks about the challenges of adapting a book for TV as well, and why many of these changes were made in the first place.

Quote

He says Arya making her first kill wouldn't have worked in the context of the show, but he doesn't explain why this is the case.

He's not talking about Arya's first kill. Did you even read the article? He talks specifically about his episode and the fight with the Lannister soldiers. As a killer, Arya hasn't 'progressed' as much in the TV series as in the books, but Bryan says that's because they want to 'stretch out' her character arc over several seasons. He also says that he felt it would be strange if Arya managed to take out those Lannister soldiers, who were fully armored. In the TV show Arya has killed a stableboy by accident, and she's trained with Syrio Forel, but that doesn't make her a soldier or a killing machine just yet, so in this regard it makes sense that she was taken by surprise and  captured.

Quote

So while I'm glad people are finally starting to ask these more probing questions, it still seems to me that they're dodging around giving satisfactory answers.

Just because you don't feel satisfied with the answers doesn't necessarily mean they're trying to dodge the questions

[Khal Pono]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Just because one can recognise and hire talent, it doesn't mean you are talented yourself.

This is incorrect.  Leadership is a talent, and I know from experience that it's virtually impossible to supervise and lead creative people effectively without having passionate and intense creativity of your own, which I do get from both of them when I hear them talk about their project.

[protar]

Arya The Assassin, on 09 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

He doesn't only talk about the changes, he talks about the challenges of adapting a book for TV as well, and why many of these changes were made in the first place.



He's not talking about Arya's first kill. Did you even read the article? He talks specifically about his episode and the fight with the Lannister soldiers. As a killer, Arya hasn't 'progressed' as much in the TV series as in the books, but Bryan says that's because they want to 'stretch out' her character arc over several seasons. He also says that he felt it would be strange if Arya managed to take out those Lannister soldiers, who were fully armored. In the TV show Arya has killed a stableboy by accident, and she's trained with Syrio Forel, but that doesn't make her a soldier or a killing machine just yet, so in this regard it makes sense that she was taken by surprise and  captured.



Just because you don't feel satisfied with the answers doesn't necessarily mean they're trying to dodge the questions

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.

[protar]

Khal Pono, on 09 June 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is incorrect.  Leadership is a talent, and I know from experience that it's virtually impossible to supervise and lead creative people effectively without having passionate and intense creativity of your own, which I do get from both of them when I hear them talk about their project.

I'm not saying they're completely incompetent, please don't mistake me. Just that they're not the amazingly talented duo that all the apologists make out. They're average producers, no more. And that enthusiasm is all on account of the dumptrucks of money i'd wager.

[Arrogant Bastard]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

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?

Agree. I have no problem with Arya not killing anyone or even fighting during the small skirmish in episode 3 (did she actually kill anyone in the book? I thought she just hacked at them), but he doesn't really explain why they're pushing back her development into a killer. THey left out her killing the guard, which I always thought was the perfect ending to her arc in Clash. Maybe it woudln't have worked on the show since all Arya really did in Harrenhal was have conversations with Tywin, but then I view that as the fault of the writers for spending so much time on those scenes that really didn't amount to much.

[Khal Pono]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

I'm not saying they're completely incompetent, please don't mistake me. Just that they're not the amazingly talented duo that all the apologists make out. They're average producers, no more. And that enthusiasm is all on account of the dumptrucks of money i'd wager.

Not sure what business you're in but if you talk to anyone in the entertainment biz, HBO does NOT pay anybody dumptrucks of money, relatively speaking.

Even if HBO gave them a big raise now that the show is successful, remember they slaved over this stuff for years before they even knew whether the show would be a hit; it was a huge gamble and potential waste of their time.  that they're only in it for the money rings completely false.  there's a million other things they could be doing, but they wanted to do ASOIAF.

[kg1982]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Just because one can recognise and hire talent, it doesn't mean you are talented yourself.

I know nothing of D+D outside GOT. But it's irrelevant anyway. Even if they had produced an amazing movie at some point in their career, it wouldn't make any difference to the quality of GOT, which almost consistently drops when deviating from the books imo.

That actually is a talent.  They're also the ones who have to deal with HBO, etc.  The only reason why Blackwater happened was because D&D were able to secure more money.

[protar]

Khal Pono, on 09 June 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Not sure what business you're in but if you talk to anyone in the entertainment biz, HBO does NOT pay anybody dumptrucks of money, relatively speaking.

Even if HBO gave them a big raise now that the show is successful, remember they slaved over this stuff for years before they even knew whether the show would be a hit; it was a huge gamble and potential waste of their time.  that they're only in it for the money rings completely false.  there's a million other things they could be doing, but they wanted to do ASOIAF.

Well I'm finding it harder and harder to believe they care about the source material so sometimes I just think that must be the case.

The absolute most optimistic scenario I can think of is that they are passionate about the books, but that they are very casual readers and therefore have catastrophically misinterepreted the source material.

[protar]

kg1982, on 09 June 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

That actually is a talent.  They're also the ones who have to deal with HBO, etc.  The only reason why Blackwater happened was because D&D were able to secure more money.

Again, not saying they're completely useless, just mediocre. And really I doubt it took much to persuade HBO. It'd be like: "Hey, HBO, you know that really popular show which is one of the most viewed shows on your network? Can it have a bigger budget?" HBO would be foolish to say no.

[Aapo]

Arrogant Bastard, on 09 June 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Agree. I have no problem with Arya not killing anyone or even fighting during the small skirmish in episode 3 (did she actually kill anyone in the book? I thought she just hacked at them), but he doesn't really explain why they're pushing back her development into a killer. THey left out her killing the guard, which I always thought was the perfect ending to her arc in Clash.

My wild guess is that they are streching her killer progress and maybe RW is one vital step in her journey which will be viewed as a breaking point.

[Keep Shelly in Athens]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Well I'm finding it harder and harder to believe they care about the source material so sometimes I just think that must be the case. The absolute most optimistic scenario I can think of is that they are passionate about the books, but that they are very casual readers and therefore have catastrophically misinterepreted the source material.

Weiss and Benioff have said they were WOWED by the books when they first read them. I think Benioff even said it made him feel like a kid again reading a completely immersible story without thinking about the mechanics of the writing or the author's technique. Martin made a huge impression on them. I'm have faith that they weren't thinking about money or job security when they wanted to do an adaptation; I think they genuinely thought it was one of the best stories ever told.

I do think that the act of debating the books online, like nerdy baseball, creates a better understanding of the source material. Maybe D&D never got a chance to do it, although they were no doubt astute readers of the text. I admit, however, that it seems like they read the books and immediately went into "pitch" mode.

[protar]

Keep Shelly in Athens, on 09 June 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Weiss and Benioff have said they were WOWED by the books when they first read them. I think Benioff even said it made him feel like a kid again reading a completely immersible story without thinking about the mechanics of the writing or the author's technique. Martin made a huge impression on them. I'm have faith that they weren't thinking about money or job security when they wanted to do an adaptation; I think they genuinely thought it was one of the best stories ever told.

I do think that the act of debating the books online, like nerdy baseball, creates a better understanding of the source material. Maybe D&D never got a chance to do it, although they were no doubt astute readers of the text. I admit, however, that it seems like they read the books and immediately went into "pitch" mode.

Well firstly, we can't really take them at their word. Of course they're going to say they're passionate about the books. And even if they were WOWed by them, that does not mean they necessarily understand the books or are fit to adapt them. Seriously, look at some of the things they are saying. Jon Snow doesn't have a father figure, Jaime is a monster, Robb deliberately slept with Talisa as an F-U to Cat and the Stark code of honour. Those are conclusions you can't logically reach if you've paid attention to the series.

[Arya The Assassin]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

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...

From the interview (my emphasis):

Cogman said:

... And I think that was something that they really wanted to explore, that it was a relationship that developed, and that we would see develop, and Robb would make the choice.

Quote

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?

He's not talking about Arya's morals, he's basically talking about pacing:

Cogman said:

We’re slowing that journey down a little bit because we’re thinking of several years of a TV series.

Besides, this is an interview, not statements from a book about Bryan Cogman's Encyclopaedia of Justified Decisions for the Adaptation of Game of Trones. The absence of certain topics doesn't necessarily mean that Cogman tried to avoid those topics or that he didn't want to answer them, it's more likely that he wasn't asked about it in the first place or that things were left out for editorial purposes (article length, etc.).

If you really want to ask him these questions, you could try to reach him directly or via HBO (might be more difficult now that he no longer has an official Twitter-account).

[protar]

Arya The Assassin, on 09 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

From the interview (my emphasis):





He's not talking about Arya's morals, he's basically talking about pacing:



Besides, this is an interview, not statements from a book about Bryan Cogman's Encyclopaedia of Justified Decisions for the Adaptation of Game of Trones. The absence of certain topics doesn't necessarily mean that Cogman tried to avoid those topics or that he didn't want to answer them, it's more likely that he wasn't asked about it in the first place or that things were left out for editorial purposes (article length, etc.).

If you really want to ask him these questions, you could try to reach him directly or via HBO (might be more difficult now that he no longer has an official Twitter-account).

1. They still could've developed a relationship with Robb and Jeyne. She was nursing his wounds for some time I expect, and they likely would've had contact even after that. They could easily have developed this relationship and still given Robb a choice at the end of the arc: will he sacrifice his honour, or hers?

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. It's one step of many. 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.

[Arya The Assassin]

Arrogant Bastard, on 09 June 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Agree. I have no problem with Arya not killing anyone or even fighting during the small skirmish in episode 3 (did she actually kill anyone in the book? I thought she just hacked at them), but he doesn't really explain why they're pushing back her development into a killer.

It's explained in the article (and I even quoted the reason in my first post).

Quote

THey left out her killing the guard, which I always thought was the perfect ending to her arc in Clash. Maybe it woudln't have worked on the show since all Arya really did in Harrenhal was have conversations with Tywin, but then I view that as the fault of the writers for spending so much time on those scenes that really didn't amount to much.

The weasel soup was left out for budget reasons. And I actually think the new conversation scenes between Tywin and Arya was one of the biggest highlights of the season. I do agree, however, that some kind of payoff would've been nice (you get the feeling that Tywin becomes suspicious about her, and yet he doesn't take action), but the Tywin/Arya scenes were not a problem per se.

[protar]

Arya The Assassin, on 09 June 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

It's explained in the article (and I even quoted the reason in my first post).



The weasel soup was left out for budget reasons. And I actually think the new conversation scenes between Tywin and Arya was one of the biggest highlights of the season. I do agree, however, that some kind of payoff would've been nice (you get the feeling that Tywin becomes suspicious about her, and yet he doesn't take action), but the Tywin/Arya scenes were not a problem per se.

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.

[kg1982]

protar, on 09 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Well I'm finding it harder and harder to believe they care about the source material so sometimes I just think that must be the case.

The absolute most optimistic scenario I can think
of is that they are passionate about the books, but that they are very casual readers and therefore have catastrophically misinterepreted the source material.

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.