Taking the Adaptation to Task: A TV Critic’s Perspective

[ServantOnIce]

So we have concluded the D and D lovers and the D and D critics one thing, "D and D ain't Martin, and only Martin working on this episode in and episode out can get it right."

[Kittykatknits]

So we have concluded the D and D lovers and the D and D critics one thing, "D and D ain't Martin, and only Martin working on this episode in and episode out can get it right."

...and that is why science needs to work on a way to clone Martin as quickly as possible. :)

[Le Cygne]

Thank you for the review, I particularly liked the bulleted section. It was an excellent summary of where they went wrong in season 2. Mainly to have such splendid source material and yet they changed it so often for no reason!

When reading the books, I remember thinking, this is going to work so well on the screen, they barely need to change a thing. It's all there. George R.R. Martin has staged it perfectly.

He writes so beautifully, with such layered characterization and plot development. Often I had to just stop for a moment just to admire how much he said in so few words. But they were the perfect words or actions, for that character, at that time.

This is some of the best storytelling I've ever read. And I quite simply could not put the books down, because I wanted to know what happened next.

But I never got this feeling with the show in season 2. With season 1, yes. But not season 2. Except for episode 9. That was like a completely different series. What might have been.

Also to add, the sex scenes really do matter. I think sex scenes in context are fine. But the nudity imbalance is not.

Most often men don't take off their pants to have sex, yet women are fully nude. Margaery was nude, but Renly had his pants on (because he had them on when he was with Loras!) Talisa was nude, but Robb had his pants on. Melsiandre was nude, but Stannis had his pants on. Osha was nude, but we didn't see Theon below the waist. Throw in many more scenes with nude prostitutes.

Jaqen was described very sensually in the book. Arya noted several times he was handsome and smelled nice, he kissed her hair, kept his own hair nice and shiny, girls giggled around him. And that bath house scene was quite literally one of the steamiest scenes in the books, not only after the way Martin characterized Jaqen (one hot dude), but the way it was described. And yet, it wasn't on the show.

I never felt there was an imbalance reading the books. The way he described Jon and Ygritte's scenes, for example, was very much 50/50. And yet I fully expect when this scene airs in season 3, once more it will be presented from a "male gaze" perspective. And what does this do for a female viewer? It's very disorienting, because if she were Ygritte, she'd be looking at Jon, too.

[Punchslap]

I can see where you are coming from but I read it a different way. I read it as if you understand the intent and know thatthe EP did it on purpose and that did not bother you at all, then it is misogny. But, from what you are saying, I actually think we are in agreement though.

If you mean the Blackwater episode specifically I'm not sure I'd agree that fits the definition of objectification (I think we'd agree mere nudity does not qualify, nor the depiction of characters objectifying). The scene with Bronn did have a couple of points to make: it reminded the viewer that that's the sort of thing Bronn does and illustrates how he views women (or at least that kind of woman), but it also serves as a contrast to the Hound who doesn't act that way at all. I took the scene as being GRRM's exploration of the differences between Bronn and the Hound. I think one could argue that scene would work just as well without the nudity, but it doesn't seem all that improbably that a prostitute brought to a bar full of soldiers might be losing her clothes. Those are just my thoughts though--I try to keep an open mind about these things.

[Caro99]

(kittykatknits, thanks for bringing me into this thread!) & i'm sorry that this is a bit long

Mr. Midroag, just wanted to say that your artice was spot on in mostly everything and that i'm so happy you are willing to defend Sansa/Sandor so much!! they are my favorite characters in the books and nothing would make me happier than to see them ending up together by the end of the series against all odds, and shocking everyone with how "improper" this ironic twist would be...

All your posts supporting and defending your initial comments about theses 2 and whether or not they are a love story have been a jpy to read :) i think that theirs is a love story, or at least the foundations for one is surely there. GRRM did an amazing job creating the complex "thing" that occurs between this unlikely two that i guess that's a factor of why it's so compelling. and he won't let go of it, IMO. he keeps bringing sandor into sansa's mind even when she is alayne, and sandor takes every opportunity he can get to bring up any mention of the little bird while he is with arys, so... i am deeply hoping they will meet again soon.

This thing you said: "

But, of all the possible and existing couples of ASOIAF, I’d most easily picture San&San going somewhere far, far away, never to be heard or seen by anyone again – and, we’d kinda know they would be OK, just having each other.

Of course, Sansa may turn out to be much more ancestry-grounded than I thought of her. After all, she is the one to build Winterfell out of snow. Maybe it isn’t conflicted with her craving for an empty master, but maybe she craves for the home she had even more. Anyway, can’t wait to read about it, to find out what GRRM intends to do with them. After all, you can see my nick.”

Even if sansa prefers to be queen in the north, or lady of winterfell, or be politically active, and even if she either remains married to tyrion or has to marry someone else for the gain rather than the love of it, I can sandor staying by her side being her paramour. Maybe even those who disliked sansa since the first book for her remarks about jon’s birth could find it in their hearts to be happy that in the end she may even sire a child out of wedlock with the hound, because she loved him and didn’t care what everyone else thought about it…

But I agree with you that if they did ride into the sunset never to be seen again, they would be just fine cause we know sandor would take care of her, and we know that if she went with him in the first place it’s because she want to be with him , not anyone else… Plus, I see them making each other very happy.

[HouseLark]

Complaining about the framerate of sword fights? It was hardly Matrix-esque. A serious article that is definitely worth reading should have avoided such an inauspicious opening.

Leaving that aside, the writer makes some good points on character motivation, particularly with regard to Catelyn. I will take issue with his remarks on Robb. I see these complaints a lot, criticising the show's depiction of a guy who is just, for want of a better term, following his cock rather than making a bad decision at a time grief. I really have no problem with this at all. Add together everything that Robb is and it would almost be unbelievable if he didn't act in the way that he did in the show. Robb is young (around 20 in the show), powerful and notable. He is also free of paternal authority. But with all that, he is naive. A lot, maybe even most, young men would act in a similar way. I suppose what I am saying is: what's so wrong with lust as a motivation? I find it a lot more believable than a grieving boy who fell in love with the girl who wrapped a bandage around his head.

The Sansa and the Hound story: it's an interesting relationship but there is a simple problem with this on screen and it comes back to the filming Lolita problem - can it ever be anything other than disturbing to the point of unwatchable to visually depict an intimate relationship between a child and an adult? OK, Sansa and the Hound don't even kiss but the spectre of an adult relationship is simmering beneath the surface. To my mind the writers had two choices here, firstly, they could have aged-up Sansa to around 20 but then that would have made her naivety all but unbelievable. Second, they keep Sansa 15-16 but remove the sexual undercurrent to her relationship with the Hound and instead make it entirely about what she represents to him.

The last point I'd like to make is on the standards that GoT and ASOIF are judged against. A number of people have claimed that GoT is getting a bit of an easy ride as it's being judged against other "genre" shows which have largely been low-budget and therefore GoT seems better than it is. Usually this is accompanied by an assertion that GoT has such a great source material to work from. I actually dispute this and to some degree you can turn he argument on its head since I believe that ASOIF gets a much easier ride in critical circles for being judged as "genre literature". I will say up front that I love ASOIF, it's a wonderful story and incredibly easy to read but let's not pretend it is great writing. It's better than most fantasy literature but doesn't measure up to something like the Rabbit series or anything by Cormac McCarthy. There are too many problems with the books to list but the most obvious to me is a prose style that is jarring and veers wildly. Part of the problem is that GRRM finds a new word or phrase between novels and then decides that it should be used which has the effect of creating an inconsistent voice. Some small example are his use of "leal" over "loyal" in later novels or "nuncle" over "uncle" and Christ knows how many different words he's found for "vagina" moving from "her sex" in one book to "her mound" in another. The point is that bracketing GRRM with Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky is not helpful as it only serves to illustrate the shortcomings of ASOIF. It's not untainted source material, it's good source material but let's not pretend that it has any of the elements that will make it a literary classic for the ages.

Again, the writer made some valid comments on the adaptation but it's from the premise that the source material is beyond reproach so I can't take it too seriously.

[Le Cygne]

Cersei and Lancel are having sex throughout season 2, but we never see it. Cersei is a main character, moreso than Bronn, and sex actually is a big part of the way she plays the game of thrones.

Cersei uses sex to manipulate several characters. Lancel. The Kettleblacks. And most of all, Jaime.

In Jaime's thoughts, we see many examples of how she has done this, as he is coming to terms with who she really is. Lancel has come to the same realization. There's a wonderful scene where the two men talk about this.

Why no scenes with Cersei and Lancel? Why no scene with a fully clothed Cersei and a nude Lancel? If Bronn strips a woman while keeping his clothes on, why not Cersei with a man?

[boojam]

From there on, I’d speculate that D&D really persuaded themselves they are able to please HBO management, GRRM, pervert side of the audience, smart side of the audience, book purists, non-readers, actors, awards’ juries... Yeah, no return from that road. I mean, they may end up making a financially successful show with decent, entertaining story. But, will we get ASIOAF on screens? No. Will it be because of the budgetary reasons, or difficulty of adaptation reasons, or some other often repeated thing? No. With this much money and that much episodes, they could’ve done a much, much better show, that would – and it is maybe my biggest issue – that could earn as much and gain a viewership as large as it does now! Only the substance of the show would’ve been infinitely better, but everything else would go the same way it goes now.

Hope this answers your question.

I thank you for that.

Not to you, but it just disappoints me (not you speaking of you) how a thread like this can not be turned to the comprehensive adaption problem with this season. I try to start the conversation about the global structure of the adaptation of CoK and things always seems to veer off into singling about sex, or subtractions from the source, or changes in narrative.... without addressing why this came about. Yes, I know what D and D have said about this being an adaptation of ASoIaF ... tho I am not quite sure what they exactly mean by that.

Comparing season one to season there is a decided awkwardness to the integration of individual stories into a unified whole.

My conclusion is , regardless of the changes from the source, the producers got trumped by lack of prep time.

That said, I was entertained by season 2.... and have no desire to give up on the show... with it's faults I had fun with it.

[Punchslap]

Why no scenes with Cersei and Lancel? ... Why no scene with a fully clothed Cersei and a nude Lancel?

Lancel does appear nude with Cersei in season one--or do you mean you think we should have seen him in season two as well?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Can someone explain to me what "fast-motioning" swords means, and why it's apparently a cardinal sin to use in television?

Because when you cast characters in a show like this, you really should use only those people who actually possess the skills of the characters they are portraying. So, the actress hired to portray Brienne should have been a master swordsman well over 6 feet tall, capable of wearing heavy armor and swinging a heavy sword as if she was freakishly strong and had been doing it all her life. Because the showrunners failed to bring that realism to the show, the series is a failure.

I'm expecting the next installment by this writer to be complaining that they use fake blood, styrofoam, and CGI rather than actually killing real people in the fight scenes.

[DurararaFTW]

We've seen Theon with his pants down and fullfrontal nude in season 1. But Stannis was pretty ridiculous.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just a few comments, the first of which has been hit already but is still jaw-dropping to me:

Sandor’s feelings for Sansa constitute one of the most memorable love stories of all times.

Something tells me the reviewer probably saw Titanic 80 times as well. In any case, for much of the period covered by the first two series, Sansa hasn't even had her period yet. She's a kid. So if this fully adult male's feelings for her constitute "one of the most memorable love stories of all times", Sandor is one creepy pedophile.

Apart from that, much of the review seems to be the reviewer's lament that viewers in general are missing all these huge plot holes, and actually enjoying the show. Even some of the readers seem to fall into that category. So for me, the tone of the review amounts to "but don't you people understand?? It's really bad!" I just don't quite see why that POV can't understand that the underlying material itself is sufficiently complex that readers have strongly disagreed over character issues in the books themselves. Many of us don't see all those characters or events the same, so some of the changes seem consistent rather than inconsistent (or inconsequential) with our views of the characters as written. There is nothing saying that his interpretation of the written characters is superior to that of any other readers, yet the POV suggests that his view of characters and events from the book are somehow canonical. It proceeds from the assumption that "Robb Stark's character in the books is 'x'", and therefore variation from that in the show are flawed. But, some of us don't see Robb's character as "x", but rather as "y", so we see the variations as consistent.

That's not a problem with the show, but rather a testament to the complexity of the books.

An example that jumped out to me was his complaint that audiences weren't shocked when it turned out that Bran and Rickon were not really dead. Apparently, the author was shocked when that happened in the books, else his outrage at the lack of suprise from viewers would make no sense. But speaking just for myself, I didn't think they were dead in the books either. Nor did most of us -- we very quickly assumed that there was some trick, and it turned out to be the miller boys. So at least to me, the way the show did that was perfectly fine. The only way to do it exactly in the book would have been as a Theon flashback, which is tough to pull off. So they gave us enough up front that the reveal later made sense, and to me at least, the degree of "surprise" was no different.

Anyway, my point is that at some level, criticisms such as this really aren't simply "purist", or "nitpicking", but have a deeper basis in that they reflect reader disagreement over interpretation of the underlying source material. I think this particular one is over the top in some respects, but in others, it reflects honest disagreements over interpretations of the source material.

[Kittykatknits]

If you mean the Blackwater episode specifically I'm not sure I'd agree that fits the definition of objectification (I think we'd agree mere nudity does not qualify, nor the depiction of characters objectifying). The scene with Bronn did have a couple of points to make: it reminded the viewer that that's the sort of thing Bronn does and illustrates how he views women (or at least that kind of woman), but it also serves as a contrast to the Hound who doesn't act that way at all.

But, the woman having her clothes removed and being nude in that scene did not have anything to do with plot or character development. The director himself told us he was given instructions to have her clothes

Yes. This is the scene that I am referring too. I agree, we do get a chance to contrast Bronn with the Hound here. We see Bronn using prostitutes in a way that the Hound does not. In that scene having her present does make sense. But we know for a fact that the director was instructed to have full frontal nudity for the sole purpose of pleasing a particular segment of the audience. The direct quote is that it was for the "perverts in the audience". In other words, this woman was naked in order to give a segment of their viewing audience a chance to see a naked woman purely for sexual gratification.

That does not mean that you or anyone else saw her in that way. But, it does mean that this was the intent of the EP.

I took the scene as being GRRM's exploration of the differences between Bronn and the Hound. I think one could argue that scene would work just as well without the nudity, but it doesn't seem all that improbably that a prostitute brought to a bar full of soldiers might be losing her clothes. Those are just my thoughts though--I try to keep an open mind about these things.

GRRM wrote the script and added the scene but he didn't add the nudity here. That was done by the director when he was told to do so by one of the Executive Producers. The scene would have worked without the nudity just fine, we would have still understood the difference between these two characters. Whether it was realistic or not is besides the point. The intent of TPTB was to put a naked woman here for the perceived sexual gratification of a portion of their viewing audience. That's where the misogyny comes in.

[Punchslap]

Yes. This is the scene that I am referring too. I agree, we do get a chance to contrast Bronn with the Hound here. We see Bronn using prostitutes in a way that the Hound does not. In that scene having her present does make sense. But we know for a fact that the director was instructed to have full frontal nudity for the sole purpose of pleasing a particular segment of the audience.

As you say it seems as if it's meant to appeal to a certain segment of the audience. It's an odd thing, as the amount of nudity in the second season is markedly less than the first.

[Lyanna Stark]

Something tells me the reviewer probably saw Titanic 80 times as well. In any case, for much of the period covered by the first two series, Sansa hasn't even had her period yet. She's a kid. So if this fully adult male's feelings for her constitute "one of the most memorable love stories of all times", Sandor is one creepy pedophile.

I think if you're going down that route you also need to be upset about Lyanna/Rhaegar*** and above all Dany/Drogo**. But I don't know, are you?

Case in point: the ages in the books are messed up, this is old news.

I could also add here that Sandor/Sansa has no physical aspect as of yet, unlike the other two. In fact, they don't even kiss, nothing. As of AFFC Sansa is older than AGOT Dany, too.

** Dany is said to be 13 and is married off to Drogo who by all estimates is somewhere between 25 and 30.

*** Lyanna was 15 when she died and Rhaegar 24 btw.

[Aemon Stark]

Just to add further, I don't feel that criticizing the show because it is not consistent with your interpretation of the book is not a valid form of television criticism.

[Kittykatknits]

As you say it seems as if it's meant to appeal to a certain segment of the audience. It's an odd thing, as the amount of nudity in the second season is markedly less than the first.

On the whole, I think there was less nudity this season but it was different than the first. We had both male and female nudity during the first season. Theon was naked, we had Hodor in all his umm....glory. The wineseller was naked when tied to the back of Dany's horse. Lancel with Cersei and then the scene with Theon, Robb, and Jon shirtless while getting haircuts. Of course, we also had the infamous sexposition with LF and the two whores and lots of Ros. Dany was also naked a couple times but those made sense in the scene as well. If you look at her in the final scene with her dragons, she should have been naked as that whole scene is not just the birth of dragons but her rebirth as well.

But, contrast all that with season two and the nudity is very different. The proportion between female/male nudity is dramatically skewed towards women with an increase in the number of full frontal nude scenes. There were multiple sex scenes that required the woman to completely strip while the man did not. When it comes to the use of nudity this season, I'd say the ones that required the man to also take his clothes off best moved the plot forward or added to characterization. Here, I am thinking of Theon with Osha and the Captain's Daughter. I'm also thinking of Renly and Loras but they were only shirtless. The woman were naked as well but that made sense in the context of the scene.

So what changed between season one and season two? Well, I'm not on site during filming so I can only guess. But, Marshall's comments about being instructed to have full frontal nudity in that scene purely for audience titillation is very revealing. Marshall's statements also imply that the increased use of female full frontal nudity this season as opposed to last is very deliberate and planned.

[winterstood]

I get so tired of book purists throwing the DB's under the bus claiming they RUINED the show or somehow "ruined" people's precious "memory" of the books. hogwash! no matter how lengthy or well-written. The show is the show. The books are the books. Two different things. With only 10 episodes and a limited (though 60 million dollars admittedly sounds like alot - in hollywood terms stretched out over multiple episodes - it's not! consider the huge costs of location shooting, special effects, actor's salaries and hotel/transportation/food & per diem costs,etc) budget, there's only so much you can do. In 10 measly episodes they can't possibly capture the complexity or dense layering of the novels. period. So they have to make decisions. Hard decisions. Executive decisions. and they do so. and this means - a different story than the novels. A "based on" or even "loosely based on" approach. And when viewed in and of itself - for it's own merits - it works! and works well.

[Punchslap]

But, contrast all that with season two and the nudity is very different. The proportion between female/male nudity is dramatically skewed towards women with an increase in the number of full frontal nude scenes. There were multiple sex scenes that required the woman to completely strip while the man did not. When it comes to the use of nudity this season, I'd say the ones that required the man to also take his clothes off best moved the plot forward or added to characterization. Here, I am thinking of Theon with Osha and the Captain's Daughter. I'm also thinking of Renly and Loras but they were only shirtless. The woman were naked as well but that made sense in the context of the scene.

So what changed between season one and season two? Well, I'm not on site during filming so I can only guess. But, Marshall's comments about being instructed to have full frontal nudity in that scene purely for audience titillation is very revealing. Marshall's statements also imply that the increased use of female full frontal nudity this season as opposed to last is very deliberate and planned.

I've only seen the episodes of season two once each, so my memory isn't good enough to comment on the nature of the nudity/sex scenes throughout all ten episodes. In general I prefer to judge seasons of any show with a continuous storyline by watching the whole thing through, but for me that will have to wait until the DVD's come out.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think if you're going down that route you also need to be upset about Lyanna/Rhaegar*** and above all Dany/Drogo**. But I don't know, are you?

No. In the context of the time, Lyanna and Dany both were women who could be bedded. Sansa was still a girl who had not yet had her period. Even in Westeros, that made a ton of difference. But for Sansa/Sandor to have had "one of the great romances of all time", when she's still not flowered strikes me as creepy.