Fair Game: a documentary about Game of Thrones

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Those of you probably have heard about this documentary produced by Miodrag Zarkovic, former boarder of here. The full thing will be released next week (via Vimeo), but in the meantime, here is the 7 minutes introduction.

The website for the project is InternetRemembers.com

I asked if we could discuss it here, so, here we go. Just be nice.

 

[Gustavo Fringed Sleeves]

The production values are certainly not as polished as the TV show it's criticizing, but it's a self-funded project after all, I think. Miodrag's narration also sounds a little bit awkward but, again, he isn't a native English speaker. I'm totally in for the content of course, but those who get their jimmies rustled by FG will surely focus on those things.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Definitely looking forward to this.

[HairGrowsBack]

33 minutes ago, Gustavo Fringed Sleeves said:

The production values are certainly not as polished as the TV show it's criticizing, but it's a self-funded project after all, I think. Miodrag's narration also sounds a little bit awkward but, again, he isn't a native English speaker. I'm totally in for the content of course, but those who get their jimmies rustled by FG will surely focus on those things.

Yeah, that's what I fear as well. Not that I care that much, if the only thing they can attack with a straight face are the production values, it speaks volume about the overall accuracy of the content.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I hope the rest of it isn't as misguided and of the same poor quality as that.

[Meera of Tarth]

6 hours ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

Those of you probably have heard about this documentary produced by Miodrag Zarkovic, former boarder of here. The full thing will be released next week (via Vimeo), but in the meantime, here is the 7 minutes introduction.

The website for the project is InternetRemembers.com

I asked if we could discuss it here, so, here we go. Just be nice.

 

Challenging discourse. Looking forward to the rest of it. I should watch the rest of it before commenting more.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I hope the rest of it isn't as misguided and of the same poor quality as that.

Just for curiosity, what's the misguided part? Because so far, nothing has been actually pointed out except: 1. The actors haven't read (which is true, by their own confession) and 2. the script and dialogues are anachronistic (and it's just ONE dialogue).

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 hours ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

Just for curiosity, what's the misguided part? Because so far, nothing has been actually pointed out except: 1. The actors haven't read (which is true, by their own confession) and 2. the script and dialogues are anachronistic (and it's just ONE dialogue).

The basic premise is that the actors not reading the books is in some way a negative or a symptom of the lack of effort and care the show has. Unfortunately this all stems from a misunderstanding of the show and what its doing, and the expectation that the show is merely filming scenes from the book and bringing the book to life. 

The show is not the book. That should be repeated endlessly and should be a mantra around here. The quality of the show is not dependent on how closely it follows the books, the show has to stand as a production on its own. The show is doing its own thing, its taking advantages of the medium its presented in and working around the weaknesses of the medium. 

So with that, the show was always going to be very different to a series of huge, wide ranging and expansive fantasy novels. To get the show made in its current format of 10 episodes a season big changes would need to made to plot and sometimes character. From that point of view its very important that everyone is on board with the vision the show is creating, and is 100% focused on the script and the screenplay, not getting confused, thinking their character is doing something different than they are, or having different motivations. 

 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The basic premise is that the actors not reading the books is in some way a negative or a symptom of the lack of effort and care the show has. Unfortunately this all stems from a misunderstanding of the show and what its doing, and the expectation that the show is merely filming scenes from the book and bringing the book to life. 

The show is not the book. That should be repeated endlessly and should be a mantra around here. The quality of the show is not dependent on how closely it follows the books, the show has to stand as a production on its own. The show is doing its own thing, its taking advantages of the medium its presented in and working around the weaknesses of the medium. 

So with that, the show was always going to be very different to a series of huge, wide ranging and expansive fantasy novels. To get the show made in its current format of 10 episodes a season big changes would need to made to plot and sometimes character. From that point of view its very important that everyone is on board with the vision the show is creating, and is 100% focused on the script and the screenplay, not getting confused, thinking their character is doing something different than they are, or having different motivations. 

 

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?"

Regarding adaptations: book scenes get left out of scripts of adaptations all the time. Book plot events get conflated into one event in adaptations all the time. Inconsequentional characters get cut out of adaptations all the time, while the more relevant side-character getting part of the lines of that cut inconsequentional sibling for example. And yet, the actors will still read source material for their character anyway. Why? Because their show or movie character is still a portrayal of the book-character, and even extra scenes and plot events in the book(s) they won't act out anyway contain character information for them. It's extra background info to know as much as they can about their character.

These are professional and overall talented actors. They can handle knowing what plot happens to their book-character. Dormer knew that Anne Boleyn would die and she read every source she could get her hands on, even though the Tudors conflates a lot of historical events, and it did not mess with her head or acting.

Reading the books though becomes an issue when the show-character != book-character... When show-characters have different attitudes and motivations and responses and are just a completely different person, then it's a bad idea to read the books. Because that would indeed mess with the portrayal that D&D desires of them. In such a case, indeed the most professional thing an actor can do is not read the books at all. D&D and the actors should just be open about it. 

If we go by the Lincoln example: DD Lewis surely read as much as he could about Lincoln, since he wanted to make a faithful character interpretation and adaptation of the historical Lincoln. Benjamin Walker's performance on Lincoln, the Vampire Slayer of course is completely independent of any accurate characterization of Lincoln.

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.

[Tijgy]

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.

[HairGrowsBack]

35 minutes 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.

It's quite baffling , isn't it ? It's basically as if a stage actor was playing Hamlet  and said he didn't want to read the play so as not to learn what happens to his character. 

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The basic premise is that the actors not reading the books is in some way a negative or a symptom of the lack of effort and care the show has. Unfortunately this all stems from a misunderstanding of the show and what its doing, and the expectation that the show is merely filming scenes from the book and bringing the book to life. 

The show is not the book. That should be repeated endlessly and should be a mantra around here. The quality of the show is not dependent on how closely it follows the books, the show has to stand as a production on its own. The show is doing its own thing, its taking advantages of the medium its presented in and working around the weaknesses of the medium. 

So with that, the show was always going to be very different to a series of huge, wide ranging and expansive fantasy novels. To get the show made in its current format of 10 episodes a season big changes would need to made to plot and sometimes character. From that point of view its very important that everyone is on board with the vision the show is creating, and is 100% focused on the script and the screenplay, not getting confused, thinking their character is doing something different than they are, or having different motivations. 

 

You do realize that what you posted is fundamentally different from the actual documentary? After reading your post I watched it again, and there is not one instance in which they criticize actors for not reading the books. Elio even spelled it out: however odd it is, if that's what they feel is the right thing then that's what they should do. But, as other posters also noted, the point that documentary is trying to make is that there's no need to lie or make fake excuses about it.

[A Ghost of Someone]

This looks interesting.

[Tijgy]

32 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

It's quite baffling , isn't it ? It's basically as if a stage actor was playing Hamlet  and said he didn't want to read the play so as not to learn what happens to his character. 

I can understand it if they would say they did not read the complete book series during season 1? Because they might actually play it with in their mind they die in the near future. I know some actors (like Robert Carlyle) who clearly state that they do not want to know what happens the next episode, ... 

However in GOT they get directly their script for the entire season, right? So the argument "I do not want to read the books because I do not want to be ahead" falls completely partly flat for the book which "adapted" in the current season.  

[HairGrowsBack]

2 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

I can understand it if they would say they did not read the complete book series during season 1? Because they might actually play it with in their mind they die in the near future. I know some actors (like Robert Carlyle) who clearly state that they do not want to know what happens the next episode, ... 

However in GOT they get directly their script for the entire season, right? So the argument "I do not want to read the books because I do not want to be ahead" falls completely partly flat for the book which "adapted" in the current season.  

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. 

[Le Cygne]

50 minutes 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 think it's just a line, that they don't want to know what's coming. It's essentially saying they suck as actors, because they aren't able to portray their character at various points of a story. Which is false. So it's a line.

Actors often shoot movies or shows out of sequence. So they are always playing characters knowing what's next. They act in plays doing the same thing over and over again, and the good ones make it fresh each time.

They made up a line, and they are good at delivering lines, it's what they do for a living.

[Werthead]

Quote

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. 

No, it isn't. For almost every adaptation from a book, play or video game to a movie or TV series, the actors involved will very frequently not engage with the source material at all. Mark Rylance didn't even read Wolf Hall before playing the role of Thomas Cromwell.

The reasons for this are numerous. Some actors don't like to read novels for pleasure. Some actors do, but having just spent three or four months playing a role and reading scripts for that role, don't want to then spend their free time doing yet more stuff related to that role. They want to break away and do something else. Some actors - Stephen Dillane, msot of the older actors and now Kit Harington - are simply too busy: they go from filming GoT into the next film, the next play or the next TV show and forget about GoT until the next press event, or until they shoot the next episode.

Some actors - like Ron Donachie - are actually massive fans of the show and will go to as many conventions as possible and will read all the books and talk enthusiastically to George and the rest of it. Some - like Dinklage - would like to do that but are far too busy. Some - like Stephen Dillane - see it as just another job and a career opportunity. They go in, speak the lines and move onto the next project and don't give the previous job another thought, and get very baffled when people start mentioning episode names and have incredibly detailed questions about stuff they did from three years earlier that they've completely forgotten about, or, frankly, don't care about.

Quote

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.

When I first met them, some of the actors were doing this. Richard Madden and Alfie Allen, I believe, were reading each season at a time, and I think Kit Harington started off doing this but then got sidetracked when other jobs came in.

[Le Cygne]

Well that's certainly not what I've seen. I think it's a line they are using.

Here's an example of an actor on Outlander, a show that is faithful (and I can cite MANY such examples when it's a serious work):

Quote

What impact do you think having the books to refer to, rather than just script, has to what we see on screen?

"I think having the books as source material is so important for an actor, and we are very lucky to be able to always go back there to research as well. And you can always find details in the books that maybe aren't in the scripts. It just fleshes out the world, and really helps you to draw upon any material that might not be in the scripts, that you can add little details. And certainly in our show, we like to do that."

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/728678427549532160

[StepStark]

11 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Well that's certainly not what I've seen. I think it's a line they are using.

That's how I understood too. It's not about actors right to not read the books. Nobody's questioning that. It's about the excuse some of them are giving. And it really is ridiculous excuse.

[Werthead]

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.