Fair Game: a documentary about Game of Thrones

[Le Cygne]

If not knowing where the character ended up was the concern, then only read season by season. Many were doing that, but stopped.

Now why did they stop? Several came right out and said it was because the books and show were too different. Others have said they were discouraged from reading the books.

This is the point that's being made here. I totally disagree with you that in adaptations of serious works actors don't like to read the source material. And we can go back and forth about that.

But the point here is that there's something more going on with this particular show.

[Primalsplit]

Am I the only one getting the feeling that Dinklage is trying to conjure up a calculated answer as he recieves the question each time? As if he is not giving a genuine answer but a lie? Call me paranoid if you like, but I smell something.

[StepStark]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Wanting to play the process and not the result? That's an acting maxim, always has been from a long, long time ago. When Babylon 5 was on the air, Joe Straczynski gave several actors the opportunity to know where their characters ended up and everything that happened to them, as he through it might help him mentally. With the exception of one actor who was filming a "flash-forwards" scene from 17 years in the future and needed to know his character's headspace at that point, they turned him down flat.

The analogy with Anne Boleyn was really pointless. Not only did Dormer know she was going to die and when and how, so did every single person watching. When you're watching a historical drama about one of the most famous queens who ever lived, trying to keep a lid on spoilers or be precious about your characterisation simply isn't going to work.

Do I think some actors might have used that line when actually their reason was that they were too busy or that they simply didn't like the books? Maybe. Does it matter? A lot of acting is politics, and saying one thing to be diplomatic and help get your next role by not appearing to be difficult or gossiping is part of the process.

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Dormer's job was not to think about what people already know about Anne Boleyn and what they don't. Her job was to portray Anne Boleyn as good as possible. And, in preparing for the role, she researched everything about the character, even though a lot of that didn't have any bearing on the show itself. That is the standard. Actor can maybe have reasons for not doing it, but "knowing too much can negatively influence my acting" is hardly a reasonable one.

And also, if Dormer said that she didn't read the scripts for the rest of the characters in Tudors because she wanted to feel Tudors as a fan, everybody would think that's insane. Because it is. If you're playing a role in a tv show, you can't be a common fan anymore. It's ridiculous to think you can. So, what she says is disrespectful not only for the source material but also for the show. She's basically saying that GOT can be enjoyed only as a "surprise, surprise!" And by the way, how can her acting not be affected negatively if she's reading only her scripts? She deliberately ignores other people's storylines while shooting scenes. Do you really think that actors should act that way, as if they're in a vacuum?

[Maid So Fair]

4 hours ago, Tijgy said:

I actually cannot really understand the argument of the actors: they do not want to be ahead? 

While I do know very good actors who also say they do no want to know what is going to happen them in the future (but then I am talking about original stories and not adaptations), this problem can quickly be solved by just reading book 1 while you are filming season A, reading book 2 while you are reading season 2, ... So I at least agree with the premises that this is not a good reason or at least the real reason why some actors did not read the books.

I never really understood this argument to be honest. It seems to go against the the grain of how filming actually works. Even if the actor doesn't read the source material, they will inevitably find out what happens from the script (for the whole season). They know where their character is going to end up when the season is over. And scenes in a movie/tv show are not filmed in a chronological order anyway so it should be a pretty common occurrence for an actor to have to enact a scene without betraying knowledge of a plot twist from a future scene they might have already/just filmed. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

As far as I could tell, the documentary-intro aired your type of argument - they're two different beasts - well enough. The guy with the red sweater, Stefan Sasse, starts by saying that, then later uses Dillane as an example. So, the documentary gives your argument a chance to shine.

The only retort made to this argument was: "Well, why don't they just say so then?"

 

I would say that the first sentence of your post is "misguided". You're assuming the maker of the documentary wants to make the actors appear as unprofessional. That's not how it comes across at all. He seems to be pointing out that what the actors say as a reason not to read the books is a lie and there is another reason for it: not even the character portrayal is adapted. And he seems to be pointing out that HBO, D&D and the actors should just be honest about it.

Agree, it did air my argument, the guy in the red hoodie was pretty sensible if you ask me, he realises that the problem with telling the truth in this day and age, is that things get blown out of proportion, misrepresented and twisted to fit an agenda. This forum is the perfect example of that, the amount of times words of the directors get interpreted in the opposite spirit of whats said shows that its often better to say the least offensive thing possible.

Just going to the website for that documentary and it suggests that:

 

Quote

That is the topic of our interest: Why is the voice of dissent left behind? Why would any legitimate opinion, and especially one that is sharThat is the topic of our interest: Why is the voice of dissent left behind? Why would any legitimate opinion, and especially one that is shared by huge number of people, be ignored and marginalized? What makes Game of Thronesso special, that the critique of it gets silenced?ed by huge number of people, be ignored and marginalized? What makes Game of Thronesso special, that the critique of it gets silenced?

So it starts off on a misguided premise. That there is a marginalization of a tiny group of book fans who are very vocal is an empty suggestion and without merit. I will be interested to see how he comes to this conclusion. In reality the show is hugely popular and gaining in popularity every year, but the dissenters are far more vocal than their numbers suggest. What internet article on Game of Thrones isn't awash with the same group of angry book fans and internet ragers. The line he quotes as ridiculous by Talisa isn't ridiculous at all, the problem is in fact with him and his imagined meaning behind it and his false sense of superiority. 

So he basically answers his own question in that short clip, to the point where there is no need to make a documentary: The excuse given for not reading the books is because internet trolls are mental and overreact, and then he shows a clear case of mental overreaction a minute later. What is the point of continuing?
 

[Werthead]

If Benioff and Weiss were actively discouraging people from reading the source material, that would be an interesting development. The most I've heard from when the show started was that they were pointing out to actors who asked that some things would be different in the shows and the books, ranging from minor details of characterisation to entire character arcs, and reading the books may be helpful in some cases and actively hurtful in others. Certainly the situation with Barristan Selmy, where the actors actually appears to have gotten quite upset that they were being killed off (and in a poor manner) when the character was still going strong in the books and rung up the producers to complain about it, may have changed their minds on that score in the last couple of seasons and made them decide to ask actors not to read the books. But certainly when the show started they let the actors decide themselves.

In Lord of the Rings the actors found the books helpful in some areas (Ian McKellan telling Sean Astin to take Frodo's hand when he wakes up in Rivendell, as that's a notable moment from the novels) and a hindrance in others: David Wenham was seriously confused over Faramir's storyline in the movies and Philippa Boyens had to sit down with him and go through the reasons for the character changes, which was time that could have been saved if he'd just gone with the script.

Quote

And, in preparing for the role, she researched everything about the character, even though a lot of that didn't have any bearing on the show itself. That is the standard.

For historical roles and playing a real person, many actors feel they do need to do this, especially if the person is very famous or if they have still-living relatives, although they sometimes don't (Rylance on Cromwell, for example). For playing fictional characters, or characters adapted from books, they may choose to research the role or not.

There is no "standard". It varies by actor and what the director and the producers want them to do.

Quote

Actor can maybe have reasons for not doing it, but "knowing too much can negatively influence my acting" is hardly a reasonable one.

That's pretty commonplace in the world of acting. Like I said, many actors like to "play the process", discovering things when their characters discover them, knowing things only when they do and so forth. Knowing things ahead of time can impact on their earlier portrayal. Some actors don't give a toss about that and like to know everything and can play surprise or whatever brilliantly because they're good actors. But others are different.

The ultimate example of playing the process was in the movie Alien, when the director Ridley Scott decided it would not be helpful for the actors to know what was going to happen with the breakfast scene where the alien first appears, so only told John Hurt what was going on. So when the alien burst out of his chest thanks to some nice special effects and blood was splattering everyone, the actors really didn't know WTF was going on and you can see that in their panicked reactions.

Quote

And also, if Dormer said that she didn't read the scripts for the rest of the characters in Tudors because she wanted to feel Tudors as a fan, everybody would think that's insane. Because it is. If you're playing a role in a tv show, you can't be a common fan anymore. It's ridiculous to think you can. So, what she says is disrespectful not only for the source material but also for the show. She's basically saying that GOT can be enjoyed only as a "surprise, surprise!" And by the way, how can her acting not be affected negatively if she's reading only her scripts? She deliberately ignores other people's storylines while shooting scenes. Do you really think that actors should act that way, as if they're in a vacuum?

Do you think every actor on Game of Thrones sits down and reads all 600+ pages of scripts for every season when their material accounts for a tiny percentage of that? They don't. If they're busy and going into GoT from one job and coming back out into another, it's not even practical. In GoT many actors have storylines and characters that are completely removed from the rest so don't need to read that material. Why does Dormer need to read Emilia Clarke's parts to play Margaery? She doesn't. She needs to know what's going on in King's Landing and around Margaery and can ignore what's going on at the Wall and Meereen and Braavos.

Other actors are massive fans of the show and will read every page because they like to know everything. Liam Cunningham seems to be in that bracket.

Hell, John Rhys Davies sometimes didn't even read his scripts for LotR once it became clear that they'd be constantly rewritten up until the day of shooting. He'd simply show up where he'd been told to go and read the script whilst in make-up.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

37 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Dormer's job was not to think about what people already know about Anne Boleyn and what they don't. Her job was to portray Anne Boleyn as good as possible. And, in preparing for the role, she researched everything about the character, even though a lot of that didn't have any bearing on the show itself. That is the standard. Actor can maybe have reasons for not doing it, but "knowing too much can negatively influence my acting" is hardly a reasonable one.

And also, if Dormer said that she didn't read the scripts for the rest of the characters in Tudors because she wanted to feel Tudors as a fan, everybody would think that's insane. Because it is. If you're playing a role in a tv show, you can't be a common fan anymore. It's ridiculous to think you can. So, what she says is disrespectful not only for the source material but also for the show. She's basically saying that GOT can be enjoyed only as a "surprise, surprise!" And by the way, how can her acting not be affected negatively if she's reading only her scripts? She deliberately ignores other people's storylines while shooting scenes. Do you really think that actors should act that way, as if they're in a vacuum?

But which is the correct version of Anne Boleyn? There are hundreds of dramatisations of Henry VIII, and they are all very different. Which is the correct one. 

An actor or actresses job is to portray the character in the way the script is portraying it and the director wants it to be portrayed. 

[sweetsunray]

26 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

That there is a marginalization of a tiny group of book fans who are very vocal is an empty suggestion and without merit. I will be interested to see how he comes to this conclusion. In reality the show is hugely popular and gaining in popularity every year, but the dissenters are far more vocal than their numbers suggest. What internet article on Game of Thrones isn't awash with the same group of angry book fans and internet ragers. The line he quotes as ridiculous by Talisa isn't ridiculous at all, the problem is in fact with him and his imagined meaning behind it and his false sense of superiority. 

This quote already shows the issue: you call it a 'tiny' group and suggesting it are the same people raging on articles. I for example do not comment on articles at all, except here. You are 'marginalizing' dissenters and dismissing them purely based on popularity numbers, without even regarding the arguments, but purely using ad hominem arguments as 'false sense of superiority'. That is full on example of marginalization.

And without any argument you dismiss a fair example made of the poor dialogue. A king who marries does so expecting to have an heir, preferable ASAP. A queen asking her husband king whether he is angry that she is with child is absurd, especially in a society where abortive medicine is the only type of family planning possible. You can choose to regard it as a nitpick, but going the AH route is marginalizing dissent and shows you have no valid argument against the dissent.  

If the show is so good, then dissenters do not need to be ridiculed, put into a corner and tackled with Ad Hominem arguments.

[Le Cygne]

Werthead, I totally disagree with you about what actors generally do to prepare for roles.

[Tijgy]

3 hours ago, HairGrowsBack said:

I don't mean to dictate how they should lead their lives, but the issue here  seems to be that they want to have the "fan experience" and be surprised (or so they claim). I'm sorry, but that's not how it works, especially in an adaptation ; an original story is an end in itself so it makes sense that they go along with the scripts, as they have nothing else ot refer to. But the key word here is adaptation : I don't think, for any other story, it would cross the actors' mind to NOT inform themselves on the source material. However, GoT is a special case, somehow. 

Yeah, I also think this is one of the main reasons why some actors don't want to know everything because they just want to have the experience of surprise, surprise, ... 

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

In Lord of the Rings the actors found the books helpful in some areas (Ian McKellan telling Sean Astin to take Frodo's hand when he wakes up in Rivendell, as that's a notable moment from the novels) and a hindrance in others: David Wenham was seriously confused over Faramir's storyline in the movies and Philippa Boyens had to sit down with him and go through the reasons for the character changes, which was time that could have been saved if he'd just gone with the script.

Quote

And is it so bad someone has to explain why they changed things? Script writers should actually be obligated to tell why they made some changes. They are still dramatizing a story told by someone else. Regarding the LOTR they were making changes to a story which can been seen as an icon of fantasy. So, yeah, they should have still a moral obligation to explain why they made those changes and the actor should have given the possibility to discuss with the producers, ... those changes. 

And further I also do not agree with the argument made that several actors are just too busy to read those books. Research is actually a part of their job. Having no time is not really a good argument to say why you did not do your job 

[Le Cygne]

6 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

And further I also do not agree with the argument made that several actors are just too busy to read those books. Research is actually a part of their job. Having no time is not really a good argument to say why you did not do your job 

Yes, it is a part of their job, and one most take quite seriously. I totally disagree with the way Werthead is presenting actors.

[StepStark]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If Benioff and Weiss were actively discouraging people from reading the source material, that would be an interesting development. The most I've heard from when the show started was that they were pointing out to actors who asked that some things would be different in the shows and the books, ranging from minor details of characterisation to entire character arcs, and reading the books may be helpful in some cases and actively hurtful in others. Certainly the situation with Barristan Selmy, where the actors actually appears to have gotten quite upset that they were being killed off (and in a poor manner) when the character was still going strong in the books and rung up the producers to complain about it, may have changed their minds on that score in the last couple of seasons and made them decide to ask actors not to read the books. But certainly when the show started they let the actors decide themselves.

In Lord of the Rings the actors found the books helpful in some areas (Ian McKellan telling Sean Astin to take Frodo's hand when he wakes up in Rivendell, as that's a notable moment from the novels) and a hindrance in others: David Wenham was seriously confused over Faramir's storyline in the movies and Philippa Boyens had to sit down with him and go through the reasons for the character changes, which was time that could have been saved if he'd just gone with the script.

For historical roles and playing a real person, many actors feel they do need to do this, especially if the person is very famous or if they have still-living relatives, although they sometimes don't (Rylance on Cromwell, for example). For playing fictional characters, or characters adapted from books, they may choose to research the role or not.

There is no "standard". It varies by actor and what the director and the producers want them to do.

That's pretty commonplace in the world of acting. Like I said, many actors like to "play the process", discovering things when their characters discover them, knowing things only when they do and so forth. Knowing things ahead of time can impact on their earlier portrayal. Some actors don't give a toss about that and like to know everything and can play surprise or whatever brilliantly because they're good actors. But others are different.

The ultimate example of playing the process was in the movie Alien, when the director Ridley Scott decided it would not be helpful for the actors to know what was going to happen with the breakfast scene where the alien first appears, so only told John Hurt what was going on. So when the alien burst out of his chest thanks to some nice special effects and blood was splattering everyone, the actors really didn't know WTF was going on and you can see that in their panicked reactions.

Do you think every actor on Game of Thrones sits down and reads all 600+ pages of scripts for every season when their material accounts for a tiny percentage of that? They don't. If they're busy and going into GoT from one job and coming back out into another, it's not even practical. In GoT many actors have storylines and characters that are completely removed from the rest so don't need to read that material. Why does Dormer need to read Emilia Clarke's parts to play Margaery? She doesn't. She needs to know what's going on in King's Landing and around Margaery and can ignore what's going on at the Wall and Meereen and Braavos.

Other actors are massive fans of the show and will read every page because they like to know everything. Liam Cunningham seems to be in that bracket.

Hell, John Rhys Davies sometimes didn't even read his scripts for LotR once it became clear that they'd be constantly rewritten up until the day of shooting. He'd simply show up where he'd been told to go and read the script whilst in make-up.

Of course that I'd expect from actors to read the entire script. Otherwise they aren't professional. If they didn't have the time to read all the scripts for the season, then perhaps they should have just passed the role. Creating a movie or a show is a collective thing, and no actor should behave as in a vacuum. I'm sure that as an actor you'd be pissed off if you'd have to shoot a scene with another actor who reads only his lines. Technically, he doesn't need to read other people's lines, but in reality that is what every actor should do.

As for you analogy with Alien, I don't think it works at all. Ridley Scott didn't hide from them what''s going to happen with their characters at the end of the movie. He just used their natural shock for one particular scene, which did require them to be shocked. And also, actors do portray shock all the time, so it's not like they need to not know what's going to happen so they can portray shock. It worked for Ridley that one time, but it's not something that is a rule.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

This quote already shows the issue: you call it a 'tiny' group and suggesting it are the same people raging on articles. I for example do not comment on articles at all. You are 'marginalizing' dissenters and dismissing them purely based on popularity numbers, without even regarding the arguments, but purely using ad hominem arguments as 'false sense of superiority'. That is full on example of marginalization.

And without any argument you dismiss a fair example made of the poor dialogue. A king who marries does so expecting to have an heir, preferable ASAP. A queen asking her husband king whether he is angry that she is with child is absurd, especially in a society where abortive medicine is the only type of family planning possible. You can choose to regard it as a nitpick, but going the AH route is marginalizing dissent and shows you have no valid argument against the dissent.  

They are marginalised because they ARE a marginal group, based on the numbers. I know its hard to accept when you sit in a thread where dissent is banned, but you guys are outliers. 

The problem about the Talisa line is that its the imagined meaning of what was said is what is making him angry. She might ask if he is angry because he looks angry, or that she fears he's worried for her safety, or its bad timing.. or its part of her character that she is worried about his reaction.. it could be anything. Its a total nitpick and again its often comments where its a vague line with plenty of interpretation to its meaning possible that cause the most problems, like in this situation where someone who thinks they know exactly what is in the head of all the characters and has a godlike vision of the world is able to correct something he find outrageous. 

Its exactly nitpicks like that help critics to lose credibility, and make them hard to take seriously. That documentary trailer has flavour of your standard internet documentary, full of conspiracy and sore feelings and a sense of superiority ill deserved. 
 

[StepStark]

8 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And without any argument you dismiss a fair example made of the poor dialogue. A king who marries does so expecting to have an heir, preferable ASAP. A queen asking her husband king whether he is angry that she is with child is absurd, especially in a society where abortive medicine is the only type of family planning possible. You can choose to regard it as a nitpick, but going the AH route is marginalizing dissent and shows you have no valid argument against the dissent.

The line really is as absurd as it gets.I don't know what's wrong with pointing out such examples of bad writing, but it looks like show lovers always try to analyze why is someone complaining, instead of what he's complaining about.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

11 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

 

And is it so bad someone has to explain why they changed things? Script writers should actually be obligated to tell why they made some changes. They are still dramatizing a story told by someone else. Regarding the LOTR they were making changes to a story which can been seen as an icon of fantasy. So, yeah, they should have still a moral obligation to explain why they made those changes and the actor should have given the possibility to discuss with the producers, ... those changes. 

And further I also do not agree with the argument made that several actors are just too busy to read those books. Research is actually a part of their job. Having no time is not really a good argument to say why you did not do your job 

I disagree. The actor is there to portray a character. He isn't aware of the ins and outs of the overall aims of a show or tv series. That is the job of the directors / producers / writers. The actor isn't the expert in writing, the writers are (supposedly). Why would you ask the opinion of someone unqualified when it comes to something that is part of your creative vision.

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

They are marginalised because they ARE a marginal group, based on the numbers. I know its hard to accept when you sit in a thread where dissent is banned, but you guys are outliers.

Being a minorioty is not the same as being "marginalized". We recognize that far more people do not question a lot int he show or fill in the plot holes and gaps with hand-waving arguments. But marginalization means to dismiss arguments as being worthless just because a minority is saying it.

I don't know which thread you're alluding to, but I have no issue with admitting what I find positive in a postive-only thread. In fact the dissenters make up at least half of the on-topic positive posts of that thread. The thread falls back to page 2 though, because the majority who apparently think everything is so great and wonderful abotu the show apparently have little to nothing to say about it, except going off topic and rant about ranters.

[larastone]

why did this documentary use interviews of the actors from 2012-2013? specifically the interviews for the season 3 promotions?  this automatically makes this documentary a complete hack production because even though seasons 1-3 did make some changes from the books, they were still following the books pretty closely. so the actors' reasoning for not wanting to read were perfectly reasonable.

if you see the actors' recent interviews, they pretty much all say that they don't read the books because the books and show have diverged so much. sophie turner and iain glen being notable examples. 

so basically this documentary starts off from using old interviews from the cast members that are no longer relevant. and should have never been relevant in the first place because the cast members not reading the books has absolutely jackshit to do with the show's declining quality.

 

[Werthead]

Quote

And is it so bad someone has to explain why they changed things? Script writers should actually be obligated to tell why they made some changes. They are still dramatizing a story told by someone else. Regarding the LOTR they were making changes to a story which can been seen as an icon of fantasy. So, yeah, they should have still a moral obligation to explain why they made those changes and the actor should have given the possibility to discuss with the producers, ... those changes. 

When it potentially holds up production and causes delays that cost money? Yeah, it is. Some of the actors had a chance to discuss things with the producers and Peter Jackson before shooting started and some things changed that way, but for lower-tier actors they were expected to come in, do their job and not cause problems. It doesn't sound like Wenham caused really major issues or anything, but in his case reading the novel was counter-productive because the screen version of the character deviated from the book version so dramatically.

If you want to tear the producers, writers and directors a new one for making poor choices, you can do that, but it's not really the actor's place to do so there on the set.

Quote

And further I also do not agree with the argument made that several actors are just too busy to read those books. Research is actually a part of their job. Having no time is not really a good argument to say why you did not do your job

No it isn't, not unless the producers or director say they have to, or they choose to do it.

The only thing the actors are expected to do is show up, know their lines, not suck, do what they're told and help out with some PR and press activities. If they choose to do more than that, that's fine. If the producers pay for them to go off and do special training for the role (like the LotR guys went to a sword-fighting boot-camp, or The Walking Dead guys get taught how to fire guns), that's a different matter.

In some cases, people have been hired to do Game of Thrones days before actually doing the role. They haven't got time to read the books, read every script or do in-depth research, and it's rather bizarre to suggest they need to or that it's outrageous when they don't. It's a business and an industry which relies on speed and a fast turn-around to save money.

Quote

Of course that I'd expect from actors to read the entire script. Otherwise they aren't professional. If they didn't have the time to read all the scripts for the season, then perhaps they should have just passed the role.

That is...an extraordinary thing to say. That is not how screen acting, on film or television, has ever worked and often isn't practical. An actor is hired, comes in, reads the script for his scenes, does them and goes onto his next job. If it's a big starring role in a movie or series that they're being paid a lot of money for and they also have to do lots of PR which may involve being asked about other characters, then he or she might want to read the entire script to get a sense of what is going on. Big projects will also have a table read of the entire script for timing and tone purposes, so the actors get a chance there to see what's going on with the other characters. Otherwise there's no need.

I mean, if you think Ian McShane has read the entire 600-odd page Season 6 script for his potential appearance in just one or two episodes, you are sorely mistaken. There's absolutely no need.

Quote

Creating a movie or a show is a collective thing, and no actor should behave as in a vacuum. I'm sure that as an actor you'd be pissed off if you'd have to shoot a scene with another actor who reads only his lines. Technically, he doesn't need to read other people's lines, but in reality that is what every actor should do.

That's not what Dormer was saying. Obviously an actor needs to read the entire scene they are in, and they need to know the dialogue of the other actors in that scene because they're the cues. Dormer in fact said that she read everything that involved the Tyrells, Highgarden and King's Landing so she could establish context for what was going on with Margaery. But she's not reading everything to do with Jon Snow or Daenerys because they're not relevant to her character, and won't be until their storylines intersect.

This thread is certainly illuminating for how people mistakenly think TV acting works, and how utterly divorced it is from the reality.

[Le Cygne]

No, I disagree with you completely about actors and how they prepare for roles. You are not accurately presenting what professional actors do.

[Sir Loin Steak]

I'd like to give a recent example of an actor preparing for his role, Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther in Captain America: Civil War.

"[...]Chadwick Boseman's portrayal of Black Panther, which began with the actor's in-depth research.

“He did great research on the very cultural aspects of the character. Even though it's a fictional cultural, figuring out ways to tether it into real African culture,” said co-director Anthony Russo. Fellow director Joe Russo added: “He found a regional accent based on where Wakanda would be. Just an incredible, intense amount of detail.”

Boseman also mixed his real world research with reading the Marvel Comics source material. “I think what you try to do is just get your hands on every single comic book you can find that has the character in it, or him being mentioned or anything. I've just tried to read them all, not like it's really work. It is work -- don't get me wrong -- it is work, but it's just sort of reading them like a kid, you know? Because when you just read it like it's work, you're just trying to get through it. So I think it's putting yourself in that mind frame to go through the mythology in a fun way. And then, also, I've gone to South Africa, gone to some places, to see some things that I think relate to the character, and let those things sort of fuel your workouts, fuel your sessions when you work on the part.” http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/black-panther-wakanda-have-great-place-civil-war

The film isn't a direct adaption of any particular story-line (obviously it takes elements from Civil War but it's very much its own story), and the Black Panther is a supporting role. The actor was perfectly capable of looking at a very diverse range of material, and distilling that into a performance that absolutely captured the spirit of the character.

Can actors perform without researching a role? Yes, there's clearly examples of that. Marlon Brando for much of his career didn't even bother learning his lines and was still able turn in competent performances. But the idea that researching and thinking about a part would be detrimental to a professional actor's performance, or that their experience of the end product as a "fan" should be prioritised over professional concerns is simply ludicrous.

 

On a separate point, the idea that the actors don't have time to read the books doesn't hold water. Professional actors go through periods where they are extremely busy and periods where they have a lot of down time - it's not like working a 9 to 5. Furthermore, the show has run for six years at this point, that's a lot of time to fit the books in (let alone the opportunity to do it when trying to get cast in the first place). There are audiobook versions that they can listen to while doing other things such as exercise routines or sitting in makeup. In most cases it would be quite easy for them just to read their character's chapters, if they just wanted that insight into the characters without taking the time to read the rest of the text.