Propriety Feelings

[Ealasaid]

Ah, I get ya a bit more now. People who just watch the show and then think they know more about the series than those who've read and re-read the books?

Did you ever try getting the school kids reading ASOIAF?

I only recommended the series to my college kids. I would have gotten in trouble for recommending it -- too much sex. One year we could not teach "The Crucible" because it protrayed Christians in an favorable light.

Fantasy is a bit tricky in the state in which I live. Harry Potter and The Golden Compass were absolutely vilified; not Christian literature. This is not new. In 1975,I started a date with a fellow, but he tore my Tolkien map off the wall, announcing it was satanic. End of date.

Kind of the same boat for me. I discovered and read all of the books long ago. I've played the Game of Thrones board game for years. I own both RPG's based on GRRM's works. Please don't judge me as a new fan based solely on the date I joined this forum.

I was a newbie, too.

I have not played the board game, nor the RPG, and probably will not unless my son should get into it. He just finished up Crysis, and has started a re-read for the July release.

[Snowmelter]

I only recommended the series to my college kids. I would have gotten in trouble for recommending it -- too much sex. One year we could not teach "The Crucible" because it protrayed Christians in an favorable light.

Fantasy is a bit tricky in the state in which I live. Harry Potter and The Golden Compass were absolutely vilified; not Christian literature. This is not new. In 1975,I started a date with a fellow, but he tore my Tolkien map off the wall, announcing it was satanic. End of date.

I was a newbie, too.

I have not played the board game, nor the RPG, and probably will not unless my son should get into it. He just finished up Crysis, and has started a re-read for the July release.

If some jerk tore my Middle Earth map off the wall and called it satanic, I'd mack 'em in the teeth with my LARP axe.

[adamsputnik]

I never came across this phenomenon regarding LoTR, but then again I also didn't know massive amounts of people who had seen the movies and hadn't read the books. For most, I think it was just a cool experience - it didn't suddenly make them experts. Maybe you just ran into a lot of narcissists?

I guess we'll see how things pan out with ASOIAF adaptation. I am not too worried about it on my part since I don't really talk to many people, so I shouldn't have too much cause to be irritated.

[SleepyNonah]

I only recommended the series to my college kids. I would have gotten in trouble for recommending it -- too much sex. One year we could not teach "The Crucible" because it protrayed Christians in an favorable light.

Fantasy is a bit tricky in the state in which I live. Harry Potter and The Golden Compass were absolutely vilified; not Christian literature. This is not new. In 1975,I started a date with a fellow, but he tore my Tolkien map off the wall, announcing it was satanic. End of date.

:rolleyes: is all I can say to that kind of ignorance.

As a confirmed cynic, I'd have been inclined to find a way to accidently name drop it: a class discussion on what they're reading outside of school would no doubt prompt the "what are you reading, sir?" question. Answer with "a book called 'Game of Thrones' but you're all a bit young for that" and the entire class would've been hooked by the following week.

Any questioning of your telling them the name of the book and all you've to do is point to the 9th commandment and remind the inquisitors that it's a sin to lie.

[Noroldis]

Kind of the same boat for me. I discovered and read all of the books long ago. I've played the Game of Thrones board game for years. I own both RPG's based on GRRM's works. Please don't judge me as a new fan based solely on the date I joined this forum.

Don't worry. I've found that on this board, the content of your posts matters a lot more than your date of joining. :)

As for the OP, I don't have any proprietary feelings about ASOIAF, and I started reading it in 1998. I'm just glad that the fandom is about expand massively thanks to the HBO series, and that both the series and Martin will get more of the acclaim they richly deserve. And I rather doubt there will be a flood of obnoxious newbies on this board who'll loudly proclaim they know everything about ASOIAF just because they've watched the TV series.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

And I rather doubt there will be a flood of obnoxious newbies on this board who'll loudly proclaim they know everything about ASOIAF just because they've watched the TV series.

You should have seen some of the True Blood threads. It was actually the other way around. Fans of the show had a hard time participating in the discussion because a few of the book fans dominated, complaining about the changes and dropping spoilers all over the place.

Fortunately I think Ran's planned ahead for that by creating two seperate forums, one for book fans and one for show fans.

[Yarl Snow]

This may have been a thread before, or may not be the proper place for it. So moved or flame it if I am out of line.

I stumbled onto the Hobbit and LOTR in 9th grade. I was 12. I read then until they fell apart and purchased new ones. The along came Peter Jackson. I love the series. Most of the scenery was perfect and I like the characters...except for the ents.

But suddenly everyody was all about the LOTR. People who neer opened a book were suddenly experts.

Now I series I discovered all on my own (ignoring the Robert Jordon salvo on the back), is adverised in the most recent Time magazine. All sorts of food trucks are out dlievering tasty dishes.

And I am a little put out. Those of us who waited for books, slogged through boards long gone, and told everyone who would listen about this great series are lost in the storm. People who never opened the books I sent them, are all fired up about the HBO series.

Petuant. You bet your sweet bippy.

I've never seen a book-turned-movie that turned out better than the book. I think the main problem is the difference of the two medias. Books are read intently and contain lots of information and finely tuned details. TV and movies are watched more casually, and so more effort is put into the surface, and less into detail.

I for one does not agree with GRRM that Lord of the Rings was a great adaptation (see his recent blog entry regarding his post in The Daily Beast). I thought it was a merciless slaughter of a great book. Almost all of the heroes were made into fools, and Frodo and Sam were made into feminine weepy prettyboys (sorry). When Frodo wakes up in Rivendell and says "Gandalf!" in the book, he "sounds" like a cheerful kid. In the movie, he sounds like a lovestruck adult man, pretending to be a boy. Gollum went from an endearing and comical sidekick/villain to an obviously animated and overacted weirdness. Treebeard (was that really his name??) the ent was changed from a slow, pondering, righteous being into a slow-witted, floundering rage machine. They even changed Faramir from benevolent almost-wizard into grasping human. They changed Merry and Pippin from sly and intelligent to two slapstick rascals. AGENT SMITH played Elrond! "The -rrrrrrrring- must be destroyed, Mr Anderson. Can you hear it? That is the ssssound of your doooom." "My. Name. Is.... FRODO!" Gah. They removed Glorfindel and had Arwen save Frodo at the river crossing at Rivendell. I could write a small essay on the many micro-murders of the adaptation.

There were nice things about LotR the movie. The imagery was very well done. Gandalf, Sauron (as the towering shade, not the eye in the sky), Saruman were great. Gimli and Legolas were not bad. Strider was not too shabby. I liked the orcs and trolls, and even the Balrog was not bad. On the surface, it was a great adaptation, but oh so many cruel and wanton character assassinations.

I read Silence of the Lambs before I saw the movie, and it was equally slaughtered. Those wonderful little details and nuances of Hannibal Lecter were turned into ghastly and spectacular imagery and crude words and insults. Jodie Foster played a horrible Starling. They for some ungodly reason changed the main story of Starling, of why the story is called Silence of the Lambs in the first place. She didn't grab a lamb and run, she didn't save any lambs at all, she tried to save a horse. She was motivated by the screams of the lambs, and still is. And it always annoys me when Jodie says "But he was so heavy. So heavy." twice. For poorly played emphasis.

I think the trouble is that you come to love a story, and then they change it. It is not just another version, the story itself becomes something else. LotR the book is VERY different from LotR the movie. It becomes cheapened, and people go around saying they really liked the cheapened version. They go around telling you "That's not what happened!" and don't even realize they are wrong. And in a sense, they are not, because the story has changed. Soon enough, you are having trouble telling one version from the other. It's not elitism or greed or anything like that.

I dearly hope that won't happen here. I'm still going to watch Game of Thrones, though. (Ye Gods, such a STUPID change of the name. "A Game of Thrones" was too long, was it?) How can I possibly resist?

[Glow]

I started reading when I was around four, and since then read everything I got at hand: if I start getting put out with people who arrives after me to a book well, I should be very put out with a vast part of the world.

I don't really love books and series getting diluted to rub the right way television/cinema standard sense of "justice and beauty" but I don't think it's a big deal, unless they keep Martin away from writing and finishing the series. Maybe getting him in a room with a fruit and water diet until he finishes could work as an strategy, but on the other hand going all Misery on him could have a negative impact on the plot :D

[nevermore]

This may have been a thread before, or may not be the proper place for it. So moved or flame it if I am out of line.

I stumbled onto the Hobbit and LOTR in 9th grade. I was 12. I read then until they fell apart and purchased new ones. The along came Peter Jackson. I love the series. Most of the scenery was perfect and I like the characters...except for the ents.

But suddenly everyody was all about the LOTR. People who neer opened a book were suddenly experts.

Now I series I discovered all on my own (ignoring the Robert Jordon salvo on the back), is adverised in the most recent Time magazine. All sorts of food trucks are out dlievering tasty dishes.

And I am a little put out. Those of us who waited for books, slogged through boards long gone, and told everyone who would listen about this great series are lost in the storm. People who never opened the books I sent them, are all fired up about the HBO series.

Petuant. You bet your sweet bippy.

why does this effect you? let them have their own experience and you keep yours, I rather like the fact that it was ASOIAF which got me into gritty fantasy and it has left a deep impression. Even for LoTR fans, I doubt the people who watched the movies have had an amazing experience as the people who read the book before the films before it was mass marketed and main stream. I know I will enjoy ASOIAF the novels, even if they destroy the TV series with shallowness and what not. But i disagree with Yarl Snow, just because the series is converted to TV which changes some major themes it doesn't destroy or mutilate the series, I liked Brian Cox as Lector and i appreciate both the film and the book as what they are. You shouldn't hate the films cause they were different to the book in some regards, you should hate them because they were 3 hour long monstrosities with EPIC WIN FIGHT SEQUENCES!!!!! anyway it was pretty to look at granted, but it was over done.

[Yarl Snow]

But i disagree with Yarl Snow, just because the series is converted to TV which changes some major themes it doesn't destroy or mutilate the series, I liked Brian Cox as Lector and i appreciate both the film and the book as what they are. You shouldn't hate the films cause they were different to the book in some regards, you should hate them because they were 3 hour long monstrosities with EPIC WIN FIGHT SEQUENCES!!!!! anyway it was pretty to look at granted, but it was over done.

It does mutilate the books when the movies overshadow them. They've shown LotR so many times on TV, so much media attention, it blots out the real impression of the book. I'm sure GoT wont be THAT big on TV, though, but LotR was. Is.

And it's not "different", it's "worse". I've yet to see something from a book being made better in a film.

[Dalan]

I am not a fan of Charlane Harris' books, but HBO's True Blood is fun to watch. That is why them taking on A Game of Thrones gives me hope that the series will at least be a very good adaptation. Also GRRM's background in television. It could have been much much worse. It could have been Starz.

But yeah... I worry that live action VS book debates where facts become muddled will be an issue.

[nevermore]

It does mutilate the books when the movies overshadow them. They've shown LotR so many times on TV, so much media attention, it blots out the real impression of the book. I'm sure GoT wont be THAT big on TV, though, but LotR was. Is.

And it's not "different", it's "worse". I've yet to see something from a book being made better in a film.

Dark knight (doesn't really count but a good example as any)

besides key phrase comes from here 'blots out the real impression of the book' because you are putting the book before the film, you don't see the film you see the book so all your doing is focusing on that. So in that sense nothing is ever better than the book. This necessarily isn't a bad thing, it's just you can't think objectively if you hold this view.

[ríomhaire]

I've never seen a book-turned-movie that turned out better than the book. I think the main problem is the difference of the two medias. Books are read intently and contain lots of information and finely tuned details. TV and movies are watched more casually, and so more effort is put into the surface, and less into detail.

I've not actually read the book so I can't offer my own opinion, but I've heard it said that the film of Children of Men is better than the book. I don't mean to offend P. D. James fans. Please don't flame me. Like I said I'm only repeating what I've heard said *hides*

[BladeDancer]

I am a newbie to this forum but I read the first four books (ASOS was two volumes) together in 2002. My brother and sister and father all in turn read my copies of the books too, so I've done my missonary work already. I got my hardback copy of AFFC signed by Martin (and a spare for my brother) when it was released in 2005. I am really looking forward to the TV show and hope it lives up to the books. I have browsed Westoros.org before but only joined at this time because of one thing - the imminent release of the next book. There are some discussion points and theories about the forthcoming Dance with Dragons that I wanted to discuss.

The TV show will undoubtedly bring more people to the story, to this Forum and to the books themselves. Our Brotherhood is going to grow. That is a good thing, as it makes for more discussions about the story. It is also a good thing in a way that the series is not yet finished because then all these interesting discussions will finish too. At the moment there are loads of mysteries remaining to be sold, hence all the deep thought, and theory-crafting which is great. Once the books are finished Westeros.org will die too, because there will not need to be various cases to be argued about possible events hinted at by foreshadowing.

An interesting point, is that the series was started at a time before the web really took off to such a degree. Of course the web was present, but I guess Authors at the time would not have really expected a Fan Forum to exist online where literally thousands of people would spent hours analysing each passage and check it for consistency or mistakes. Just as well, that so far, Martin's work has stood up to such scrutiny very well. The Wheel of Time is in a similar situation.

The point is that at this stage we can still theorycraft about future events. More fans equals more people to theory-craft with, and that should be a good thing.

[Xenophon]

It does mutilate the books when the movies overshadow them. They've shown LotR so many times on TV, so much media attention, it blots out the real impression of the book. I'm sure GoT wont be THAT big on TV, though, but LotR was. Is.

And it's not "different", it's "worse". I've yet to see something from a book being made better in a film.

Books and movies/tv are such different things that I don't think you can simply say one is always better than the other.

For example, I think The Leopard is a very good novel. I also think the movie adaptation is one of the greatest films ever made. But I don't think the movie is better than the novel or vice versa. They're so different--the novel is an amazing character study, exploring Don Fabrizio's inner thoughts, while the movie is a masterpiece of using landscapes and visuals to convey emotions. While they're both versions of the same basic story, they're also very different kinds of art and aren't comparable in any simple way.

Now, I'll grant that many films are worse than the books, and that some books don't translate well to the screen, especially if much of their appeal lies in descriptive language, or shifting POVs. But I don't think AGoT is doomed to fall into that trap. Done right, fantasy can be great on screen, especially when you have a world as rich as GRRM's. Yes, you'll lose some of the subtleties of the plot and dialogue, but (IMO) that will be more than made up for by the depth of immersion that visuals can add.

[mummer]

I've not actually read the book so I can't offer my own opinion, but I've heard it said that the film of Children of Men is better than the book. I don't mean to offend P. D. James fans. Please don't flame me. Like I said I'm only repeating what I've heard said *hides*

I'm a PD James fan and I liked that book more than a lot of people did, but it's a very odd book and I think it would've been pretty hard to film it as written; it spends nearly as much time on the personal relationship between the main character and the autocratic ruler of England as it does on the whole extinction-of-humanity thing. I thought the movie was mostly beautifully done, and gained more in terms of atmosphere and thematic focus than it lost in terms of characterization and subplots. I just had to remind myself that it's not the book. Sort of like Blade Runner: not at all faithful, and not the kind of thing the novelist would've written, but great in its own way.

[Gregor Barksdale]

I've never seen a book-turned-movie that turned out better than the book.

Blade Runner?

Fight Club?

[Gnomestress]

Don't be an elitist. Let everyone enjoy their Ice and Fire.

Truth.

I was 9 for the vast majority of 1996. I don't think GOT was appropriate for me at the time. :P I hopped into the series in 2007 after a friend recommended it. That doesn't make me a super noobie but I haven't had to do as much waiting as some of you.

Old school vs new school only creates tension in the fandom. Yes, they're all now immersing themselves in R+L=J and various other dead horses. If you've heard it a gazillion times already then it will be old, sure. Ignore it and just enjoy the ride of something we've known was great for a long time finally get its time in the limelight.

I have enjoyed most Books to TV conversions I've seen...Except for the Dresden Files show. That needs to be purged by fire. Sidebars aside, I enjoy the TV/Movie versions because I put them firmly in a box labeled "NOT CANON" in bright red letters in my mind.

[Yarl Snow]

Dark knight (doesn't really count but a good example as any)

besides key phrase comes from here 'blots out the real impression of the book' because you are putting the book before the film, you don't see the film you see the book so all your doing is focusing on that. So in that sense nothing is ever better than the book. This necessarily isn't a bad thing, it's just you can't think objectively if you hold this view.

I am unable to think anything but objectively, Ser.

I think it is simply the difference in media. Movies and TV are designed to be somewhat shallow, or people lose interest, or lose track, miss details. Also, you don't usually rewind a TV show if there is something you don't quite get, but you can do that with a book.

I think they probably should have split Game of Thrones over two seasons. 10 episodes is way too little to encompass all that happens in A Game of Thrones.

This reminds me.. They started to show the series based on The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind last year, so I figured hey, maybe that's a good read. There's plenty of books to go around, if nothing else. So I read the first six books, and started to glance at the TV show. I didn't recognize anything. They call it The Legend of the Seeker instead, and frankly, there is nothing in the plot that matches the books in the few episodes I've seen. It's weird. The books are completely forgettable, so maybe the series would improve it.

Blade Runner?

Fight Club?

Haven't read either book, but I was not too fond of either movie. Blade Runner, yeah... ok, it's decent. The main concept: Machines can feel too. It's not a revolutionizing thought to me. Fight Club.. he was fighting himself. Neat, but not much more. (Sorry if I offended anyone ;))

[SleepyNonah]

Film adaptation better than the book: The Godfather.

/end discussion