Jump to content

Adapting ASOIAF For the Screen...


Maester Yobjascz

Recommended Posts

Oh, I definitely agree about the low angle shot, fast jerky camera movement, the sound of the wolves padding and panting...

But I've been rereading ACoK, and a lot of the wolf-dreams revolve around the lost brother and sister wolves (not scents, but thoughts that could be played out), and smells (Bran/Summer can 'smell' the Ironborn approaching as they climbing the walls of Winterfell).

For example, during one of his dreams, Jon/Ghost can 'smell' where Bran/Summer are... it smells cold, earthy, and like death (they're hiding in the crypts)). That can't come across visually, unless we do some sort of fast cut to a representative 'death' image to suggest to the audience that Jon has sensed 'something' that deals with death. The alternative is, when Jon is describing the dream to Quorin and the others, he mentions that he spoke to a weirwood with his brothers face, and it had the cold smell of death about it.

There are ways to get these concepts across, it's just difficult to decide on a particular approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that it would be great to do the Robellion as a separate story in a 2hr movie format. It could focus on establishing the grit and place of Westeros. It could focus on the two powers (Ned & Robert vs Aerys and Rhaegar) coming to a head.

Actually the more I think about this the more I like this. I think it could be done without revealing the L+R=J secret.

Imagine the pomp and glory of the King & Court at the Harrenhall Tourney, The obvious good guys. Rhaegar is intelligent and regal, but somewhat somber and broody, almost Melancholy, his only joy is in Lyanna.

Amongst the chivalry you have the whole Ned & Ashra love story and the Kofthe LT.

Ned & Robert return to the Vale and then some of Aerys madness is revealed. Perhaps not everything is great in Camelot. Who really are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Building up to the Brandon wedding. Ned is exposed as a man of extreme honor.

Then Brandon gets word of Lynnas “abduction†Fast action with all the battles. What is the rebellion fighting for? To depose the Mad King, sure. Revenge for Lyanna, definitely. Climax at KL. Ned expects to find Lyanna, hears that she is at TOJ.

Lots of angst when Ned gets to TOJ, as battle ensues, action slows, screen starts to fade to white. Ned gets to Lyanna’s side in her bed of blood. Did the KG kill her? did someone else? Child birth? What? Fade to credits.

No real good guy, no real bad guy, everyone, except Ned is some shade of grey. Leaves all of the mysteries in place. Ned & Rob win the throne but loose the girl. Plenty of resolution, but no one is truly happy.

Very ASOI&F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And L'Sana -

While I understand that GRRM wasn't penning a screenplay when he wrote these novels, my point was that a lot of the lessons he learned played out in his writing. I'm not saying that we couldn't do things differently, or that there aren't places where such shifts in the stories are useful or even necessary, but only that, in this instance, I think GRRM's approach is very well suited for a screenplay.

Here's the thing: if you cut the sequence down to the bare bones, in order not to give too much away, then all you're left with is a 1-2 minute sequence that shows some images, doesn't explain anything, and then shifts to somewhere else (the Prologue) with a wholly different story, unrelated to what was just seen. There's no context gained, no connections drawn, nothing but added confusion.

Conversely, if you open with the Prologue, you have a complete story... characters are introduced and developed, a plot is shown (a mystery - what happened to the wildlings), conflict ensues (between Royce and his men, and between the men and the Others), and we have resolution (aha... the wildlings were wights created by the Others...).

Once this story is resolved, we can move on to the next story: the Starks (from the beheading to, I'd say, before the King's arrival... I'd make the King's arrival, Bran's fall, and the departure the second episode (ending with Robert & Eddard discussing Daenerys).

The third episode would be Daenerys I *and* II, and I'd like to expand these two to get to know Illyrio and Viserys better... and there's a lot of backstory that needs to be told... I'd start with Daenerys' birth on Dragonstone, Ser Derry and the house with the red door, being kicked out, fleeing from the 'Usurpers' knives', becoming the Beggar King, and finally arriving at Illyrio's.

The fourth would be the beginning of the conflict between the Starks and the Lannisters, as the King's party leaves the North... Joffrey and Arya, Lady being killed, and so on... skipping ahead to Eddard's arrival at King's Landing. He'll arrive and be brought to a brothel, where he sees Cat... and Cat will tell her story (her skipped chapter plays out here as a flashback/tale).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L'Sana pretty much beat me to it!

GRRM is not Dan Brown - he doesn't write his books with Hollywood in mind, he just writes them as books. But books and films are very different mediums. I like Stephen King's analogy - "Books and movies are like apples and oranges: both delicious but in very different ways." What works on the page won't necessarily work on the screen. Adaptation requires change, not just copying and pasting

There is so much backstory about how Robert came to be king which needs to be known early on for anything to be understood. The only ways to do that are to actually show it or to have some expository dialogue. But that the latter option would be the worst kind of clunky exposition. "Now as you know Robert, fourteen years ago you and I started a rebellion..." Ugh. Showing it would be far more powerful.

You could possibly get away without showing the ToJ, as there is the scene in the crypt early on and Ned's dream later, but Jaime killing Aerys would be the climax of the prologue, it would have to be in there! And Ned and Robert don't need to recap the war on their ride - they have plenty to talk about with Dany. In fact, that scene is a perfect example of the difference between books and films - in print that's a great scene. We can imagine it all as we read. But if you were watching these two men talk about these exciting events you'd wonder why on earth we couldn't see it for ourselves. If transferred directly onto the screen, that scene would be static and dull. Film is all about the visual - if something can be shown, it should be shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Robellion is to complex to do as a prologue, or even an opening episode. I think it should be a stand alone 2-2 1/2 hr long movie on the big screen. Release the Movie 6-9 months ahead of the series and then play the movie on HBO as a build up to the series premier.

This would serve many purposes.

One, it would create an audience and deepen audience interest. There are a lot of people who won’t read books, but do go to movies. The more people who know and love Westeros, the bigger the audience.

Two, media build up to the TV series that can ride the coat tails of the movie. When the actors do their circuit of the talk shows, they can talk about the Movie and the upcoming series.

Three, it would increase the ad revenue. A proven franchise is much more valuable for advertisers than an unknown.

Four, it creates a cash flow for the franchise before production begins. Many series have to start with a limited budget and grow that budget as the success of the franchise takes off. ST:TNG is a perfect example of a show that had a very limited budget its first season and you can totally tell the difference in the sets, scenery, props, production quality, etc.

Five, it would let them flush out the production issues before committing them to the small screen. Rather make any fixes or improvements before the first episode rather than during the season. Any glitches could be resolved before shooting S1E1.

ETA

6. Lets you build sets, scenery, wardrobe, etc. on the Movie's budget that can be the seed for the TV production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rebellion could be well done as a movie...

And at the risk of taking this tangent waaay off topic, how about the D&E series? I'm of two minds here... first, do the D&E's as a film (or films), as they're better suited to that format. These would precede the ASOIAF series to accomplish the goals MJS described above. Although it wouldn't raise the Rebellion history, it would provide some useful background on Westeros in general.

The alternative is to run with a Rebellion movie, and then use the D&E as scattered episodes in the greater ASOIAF series. Basically, split D&E into a few episodes (maybe 6 total... two per story), and run a couple per season... provides background and a break for the ASOIAF actors... but also spreads the D&E stories pretty thin...

I tend to prefer the former over the latter, even at the expense of a Rebellion movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the D&E stories are a completely different cast, you could be producing those concurrently with the TV series. There will supposedly be 7 D&E stories in all, so I see those as movies that could be released every year or so. (Perhaps every 2 years) 6 from above And serving as feed for the fans.

OR

Hasn't HBO does some production breaks for some of its shows? I kind of remember Soprano's having a year long break or something. Perhaps D&E could be fillers on the big screen for times when the studio takes a break on the show.

OR

They could also serve as cash cows after the series has run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rebellion is a great story but it's the backstory. It's not the Song of Ice and Fire, it's the set up for it. It's what gets the characters to the point they're at in their lives when the real story starts.

If there's one thing the Star Wars prequels it's that the backstory should stay in the past, where it belongs!

ETA: I vote for D&E being cash cows after the series is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its back story, but it is critical back story. And it can stand alone outside the rest of the series as a complete story. And it is a story that isn’t critical to the initial plot. It tells the audience who these people are, and why they do what they do, but understanding it all isn’t necessary to understand that Ned is disappointed in how Robert turned out. If someone doesn’t see the movie, they can get the necessary bits from the flashbacks within the series.

Tysha, you want to make it a part of the first episode because you know how important it is to the story. I want to stand it alone, because I agree with you.

I say that you either tell the whole Robellion fully developing the chrs, setting, world, etc or you reveal it the way it was done in the books, piece by piece throughout the story.

Also, you could never do the Robellion once the series is done, as everyone will have seen the bits and pieces during the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think that the intro Robellion flashback would be a better way to go, just like LOTR. Some narrator saying that a Mad King was in power and that needed to change. We don't need to know how Brandon and Rickard died, or the other various horrifying things Aerys did, it's enough for the never-seen-it-before audience to just understand that Aerys was a king who was insane, and that didn't fly. Add in that Rhaegar "kidnapped" Lyanna, do a quick montage of some battles with Robert fighting and Ned in the background as a commander, Rhaegar dying, end with Jaime slaying Aerys...and maybe even Ned returning to Winterfell somberly with a baby in his hands, heh. Nah that's too obvious :) I'd say that discovering Lyanna should just be foreshadowed - like Ned coming into a darkened room with candles and we see a shadowed figure on the bed, and have no idea who it is...except we'll be like "oh, it must have been Lyanna" when we see Ned and Robert talking in the crypts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where you're coming from but I'm not sure that the rebellion would make for a satisfying film, as great a story as it is. Nothing's really resolved at the end of it, there's just a lot of dead bodies ... because it's the backstory and it sets up the events of the series. While it would be great as a fan to see it on screen, a film of the rebellion would definitely be one for the die hards only!

I also don't think it would be possible to not show R+L=J (you know ... if it does...) in a full-length rebellion movie without being deliberately misleading.

It wouldn't be possible to release the movie six months before the TV series aired. Has that ever happened before? A spin-off from a successful movie is one thing, but this would involve the series being in production before the movie was released. That's just not going to happen! And anyone who didn't see the movie would be put off watching the series.

The story in the books is the story that needs to be told. The story of the rebellion is what needs to be known in order to understand that story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every show that gives an introduction to the world at the beginning of the series, there's another that doesn't... and both work fine. 'Gilligan's Island' showed the backstory at the beginning of every episode, and it's one of the more memorable shows of all time.

Conversely, shows like The 'West Wing', '24', and 'Lost' launched right into the story... the history was backfilled through flashbacks, flashback episodes, or snippets of dialogue that, over time, filled things in. Same thing for cable series' like 'Six Feet Under' and 'Queer as Folk'.

Of the two approaches, the latter seems to me to be the more 'modern' approach. I say that because I can't think of a recent series that did this. LotR appears to be an exception, but was also a film where there was less time to flesh out history as needed.

I agree that the story of the rebellion needs to be told to make sense of what happens... but I don't agree that it needs to be done up front. I think it works better to have the history filled in piece by piece as the series goes on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if anyone has suggested this or not but what about animation? I see pifalls everywhere with trying to bring a live-action rendering of ASoIaF to the screen but it could be done with animation. Now, I know it would be a tremendously long animated series and most adults seem to think anything animated is strictly for kids but I could see something looking akin to Nickelodeon's "Avatar: The Last Airbender" working quite well. I know Avatar is lighter and meant for young people (although I like it) but what I'm getting at is just the animation itself, how it looks. Anyway, just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince... I noted that you moved this over from the casting thread... and unfortunately, I think it's a bit outside the scope of what we're doing as well...

Animation is a legitimate style, and one that's increasing in popularity amongst young adults (particularly in the anime styles). However, the difficulties of adapting the written word to film are no different than those of adapting to animation. Both are dynamic visual media, and both face the same restrictions.

Doing the series in animation does free up substantial amounts of budget funding (props, location, actors, etc.), though there are still tremendous costs (animators are not cheap... depending on the quality and style sought, and good voice actors are not that much cheaper than film actors). Animation also has some advantages over film, as special effects shots are no more expensive than standard shots.

In any case, this thread is focused on the screenplay adaptation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every show that gives an introduction to the world at the beginning of the series, there's another that doesn't... and both work fine. 'Gilligan's Island' showed the backstory at the beginning of every episode, and it's one of the more memorable shows of all time.

Conversely, shows like The 'West Wing', '24', and 'Lost' launched right into the story... the history was backfilled through flashbacks, flashback episodes, or snippets of dialogue that, over time, filled things in. Same thing for cable series' like 'Six Feet Under' and 'Queer as Folk'.

But none of those have the kind of backstory ASoIaF has! As has already been said on this thread, the mysteries on Lost have just got annoying and none of the others really have mysteries. The characters have histories, of course, but nothing like what we're dealing with here.

I agree that the story of the rebellion needs to be told to make sense of what happens... but I don't agree that it needs to be done up front. I think it works better to have the history filled in piece by piece as the series goes on...

The story of the rebellion does indeed need to be told and it needs to be told early on. Not every tiny detail, but the outline of what happened, just to make sure everyone is up to speed. This five minute prologue we're talking about wouldn't tell every detail, it would give a broad outline of what happened, leaving the finer details to be filled in at an appropriate time

If we don't show the rebellion at the beginning then what are the options for filling the audience in on what's happened? The exposition is done artfully in the book but prose can do things the screen can't. On screen we have the options of flashback or dialogue. It would be ridiculous to keep interrupting the narrative for constant flashbacks - because there would be a lot needed and in quick succession, early on in the story when we should just be getting on with the story and not sitting down for a history lesson. So that leaves dialogue. Expository dialogue is hard to do at the best of times but expository dialogue between characters who should know everything already is excruciating. It would be clunky, awkward and dull. Like I said before, that scene where Robert and Ned discuss Ned finding Jaime on the throne works great on the page because the reader is free to imagine it how they like. But on screen, where the visual is provided for you, that's just two guys sitting on horses and talking for too long. It would be so much more interesting to actually show that scene and then leave the Ned/Robert scene to be shorter and tighter.

Sticking to the order of the book also leaves the problem of the three storylines being totally disconnected, and their introductions episodic and too slow-paced for the screen. The rebellion -> Starks in Winterfell -> book prologue -> execution opening that L'Sana suggested introduces all three storylines within the first ten minutes and, crucially, it introduces them all in relation to each other. It makes the world whole and complete right from the start.

We're talking about adapting a book for the screen - about taking the words and turning them into pictures. Why not take advantage of the opportunity to visualise something so exciting and important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tysha -

My only comment is that, while some of the history of the Rebellion is described in the characters' thoughts, most of of itis told in dialogue between characters... and that dialogue is so well written that there's no reason *not* to use it.

The tale told by Eddard to Robert for example. Not only is it well written, but it tells the audience *tons* about Eddard and Robert. Not because of the content, but because of why Eddard thought it was important, and why Robert thought it wasn't. It's their reactions that count as much as the history itself.

And if you don't have Eddard tell the story, there's no way to show his bristling at Jamie's action, or Robert's reaction. And if you've already shown the story, telling the tale again gets boring.

And I wouldn't worry about it being two guys on a horse swapping stories. You see them gallop off... pull up, and start a heart-to-heart chat. Eddard launches into his story, and we fade to a visual flashback to what Eddard saw at the time... the scenes you're describing for the intro. Over it all, we've got Eddard voicing the story, using the text from the novel. As he concludes his tale, it fades back to Eddard's stern face, to show the import of the matter. Cut to Robert, who can barely contain his amusement... "That's it?" he asks... and he continues to write the whole thing off, before turning and riding off. Cut back to Eddard, who looks exasperated and pained... left to decide whether to follow or leave... before giving in and turning to follow... There's no break in the dialogue. There's no wavy lines or echoing audio. Just smooth transitions, with a short, well-written flashback that lasts *maybe* a minute. Tells lots about the history and the characters. I don't see the problem.

I'm not talking about constant flashbacks or expository dialogue... those are the hallmarks of *bad* adaptations. But an occasional and well-written scene, combining good dialogue and well-edited visuals can do wonders and shouldn't be discounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only comment is that, while some of the history of the Rebellion is described in the characters' thoughts, most of of itis told in dialogue between characters

No it's not! The finer details are perhaps filled in through dialogue and I'm not disputing that that should stay, but the large chunks of early exposition are prose and internal thought. Look at the first Cat chapter - a thought from her about Jon Arryn leads to the reader being told about the start of the rebellion. Imagine if that had to be conveyed in dialogue:

"Oh Ned, I know upset you must be. Jon was like a second father to you, after he fostered you and Robert, and then the three of you led that rebellion together-"

"Er, Cat ... why are you telling me my life story? Go away you stupid woman..."

Or look at the first Ned chapter - he sees how much Robert has changed and we get exposition about the Trident. They go down into the crypts and we get some more, and all of it is internal. None of this can be done in dialogue and constants flashbacks at this point would be ridiculous. Why not just let the audience already be up to speed by this point?

The tale told by Eddard to Robert for example. Not only is it well written, but it tells the audience *tons* about Eddard and Robert. Not because of the content, but because of why Eddard thought it was important, and why Robert thought it wasn't. It's their reactions that count as much as the history itself.

And if you don't have Eddard tell the story, there's no way to show his bristling at Jamie's action, or Robert's reaction. And if you've already shown the story, telling the tale again gets boring.

But we would see Ned's reaction - when it happens! It's pretty obvious how the Starks feel about the Lannisters by this point and the fact that Robert is married to Cersei and considering making Jaime warden and letting Tywin foster Robert Arryn is plenty enough information about how Robert feels about the Lannisters.

And I wouldn't worry about it being two guys on a horse swapping stories. You see them gallop off... pull up, and start a heart-to-heart chat. Eddard launches into his story, and we fade to a visual flashback to what Eddard saw at the time... the scenes you're describing for the intro. Over it all, we've got Eddard voicing the story, using the text from the novel. As he concludes his tale, it fades back to Eddard's stern face, to show the import of the matter. Cut to Robert, who can barely contain his amusement... "That's it?" he asks... and he continues to write the whole thing off, before turning and riding off. Cut back to Eddard, who looks exasperated and pained... left to decide whether to follow or leave... before giving in and turning to follow... There's no break in the dialogue. There's no wavy lines or echoing audio. Just smooth transitions, with a short, well-written flashback that lasts *maybe* a minute. Tells lots about the history and the characters. I don't see the problem.

Honestly ... I don't think that would look very good. I think it would look kinda silly. The occasional flashback or snippet can be very powerful - for example, I'd love to have a flashback of sorts when Tyrion first tells Bronn about Tysha. I don't mean show the whole thing - nothing lingering, no dialogue, no wavy lines, just a few quick images - I'm thinking something like in Brokeback Mountain where it flashes back to young Ennis seeing the dead man in the ditch. As quick as that. A close-up of young Tyrion's anguished face, then the sound of a sword being sharpened on stone and a quick cut back to adult Tyrion relating the story to Bronn. But extended expository flashbacks just slow down the narrative. We have a big story to tell here, we need to get on with telling it!

And Shibby - cheers! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not! The finer details are perhaps filled in through dialogue and I'm not disputing that that should stay, but the large chunks of early exposition are prose and internal thought. Look at the first Cat chapter - a thought from her about Jon Arryn leads to the reader being told about the start of the rebellion. Imagine if that had to be conveyed in dialogue:

"Oh Ned, I know upset you must be. Jon was like a second father to you, after he fostered you and Robert, and then the three of you led that rebellion together-"

"Er, Cat ... why are you telling me my life story? Go away you stupid woman..."

Or look at the first Ned chapter - he sees how much Robert has changed and we get exposition about the Trident. They go down into the crypts and we get some more, and all of it is internal. None of this can be done in dialogue and constants flashbacks at this point would be ridiculous. Why not just let the audience already be up to speed by this point?

I understand your concerns about this... and much of this exposition would have to be clipped out. But I don't know how a short intro showing the highlights of the Rebellion would introduce this information either.

--------

In the interests of keeping an open mind to different options, perhaps a better option would be to clip a lot of this exposition entirely... leave the minimum flashbacks and information so that the audience can follow along. They go down into the crypts because Robert wants to pay his respects to Lyanna. The two say their lines, and then they leave. It's enough for the audience to figure out that Robert loved her, and that they went to war for her. No flashbacks. No exposition. Just the dialogue. Same with the Catelyn/Eddard scene... Leave a lot of that out.

The audience will piece things together eventually... what they don't get immediately isn't that important or urgent. And if they really want to know, they can either read the books, or we can put additional scenes online at the show's website. Much like the Matrix did with the Animatrix... the Animatrix was a series of short animated vignettes that filled in *a lot* of backstory. From the movies alone, you could kind of piece some of the details together, but they weren't necessary to follow the action. This could be the same.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...