[NO SPOILERS]GoT vs. Other Historical/Fantasy Dramas

[Arya The Assassin]

Do you watch other TV shows that roughly fall into the same genre as GoT? If yes, how do you think GoT compares to the other TV series you've seen? Why do you think some of these shows have received a lot of praise, while others have not been that successful?

My impression is that GoT has been well received by both fans and non-book readers in general. HBO has said that their aim was to make a series that also appealed to the non-book readers, and it certainly looks like they've managed to achieve that goal.

But why has GoT been so successful among non-book readers? I'm not sure, but if I were to speculate, I'd say it's because of a strong cast, dynamic characters and a rich plot. There are so many different, strong and interesting characters in GoT that it's difficult (even for a non-book reader) not to find a character that you don't really care about. The relatively complex story is not too difficult to follow either, so the writers have done a good job in this respect (I think this is particularly important for non-book readers).

I believe the fact that magic and fantasy-elements in GoT have been toned down in the beginning (as in the books), also makes the series more accessible to people who don't really enjoy fantasy. I think it was important that GoT established itself early as a serious plot- and character-driven series for adults. There will be more fantasy-elements later, but by that time the non-fantasy viewers have probably become so engrossed with the plot and characters that the magic won't be that distracting anymore.

I've not seen any of the other TV series that I mentioned in the topic title, apart from Spartacus: Blood and Sand. How does it compare to GoT? Well, I think they've done a relatively good job with the production design and dynamic visual style (I presume their budget was much smaller than GoT's). But the acting is not as good as in GoT, and some of the roles even seem miscast. It's also more action-driven than character-driven, with more emphasis on action, violence and sex. Overall, I think it's a decent series, but it's not as engrossing and entertaining as GoT by far.

The list below shows some of the most popular TV series, sorted by IMDB-rank:

1. Game of Thrones (2011): 9.5 / 20.229 votes
2. Boardwalk Empire (2010-2011): 9.0 / 9.974
3. Spartacus: Gods of the Arena (2011): 9.0 / 9.578
4. Spartacus: Blood and Sand (2010): 8.8 / 26.768
5. The Borgias (2011): 8.6 / 959
6. True Blood (2007-2011): 8.3 / 11.436
7. The Tudors (2007-2010): 8.1 / 10.885
8. Camelot (2011): 7.5 / 1.375

Note: GoT's score is extremely high, and the show is currently ranked as the 4th highest rated TV show ever on IMDB. It's also the highest rated show currently in production. The score will probably drop a bit, though, as more and more votes are being cast. It should be mentioned that IMDB ratings are not based on scientifically valid polls, and they do not necessarily represent the public/viewing audience as a whole.

EDIT: Updated the score and vote count for GOT. It's still going strong with a 9.5 average.

[Arya The Assassin]

I forgot to add a "NO SPOILER"-tag in the title. Perhaps an admin could edit the title and add the tag for me? (I don't think it's possible for me to change the title).

EDIT: Thanks, Ran!

[BigFatCoward]

The score will probably drop a bit, though, as more and more votes are being cast. It should be mentioned that IMDB ratings are not based on scientifically valid polls, and they do not necessarily represent the public/viewing audience as a whole.

actually the score at present is trending up, IIRC it was getting about 9.0 for the first couple of episodes. it definately isn't a 9.5 for me though, not at present.

[Xenophon]

I watch the Borgias. Although the two shows are somewhat similar, they feel very different (IMO), because 1) the Borgias focuses on a single family, and 2) the Borgias is set in the real world, so you're always thinking about the actual historical characters.

I find there's more tension in GOT because of the various plot threads and the fact that there are sympathetic characters in both House Lannister and Stark. With the Borgias, the audience is pretty clearly in the Borgia camp (even if they are villainous), because while there are some sympathetic opponents, there's no one like Tyrion to really divide your loyalties.

[Ser Warpechowski]

Current shows and movies always have a higher grade, mainly because of the hype. I remember when Dark Knight stood as the number one movie of all times for quite some weeks.

Spartacus is a great show but its very diferent from GOT, so I dont think they should be compared.

And I hope non-readers are liking this show because Im pretty sure many of those votes are from fans.

[Chirios]

I like the Borgias. A lot. Truth be told I think that if Tyrion hadn't been born a dwarf, he would've had the same relationship with Tywin that Cesare has with Rodrigo.

[The Anti-Targ]

Yeah, I think, unlike all those other shows(?), GoT has a very loyal fanbase who are gona skew those numbers up.

For my part I've only watched Tudors and Spartacus: B&S. I liked both, and true to GoT reader fans' biases I like GoT more. Though I wouldn't give it a 9.5, 8.0 at best given that's the highest I've rated any of the indivdual shows so far. Tudors and Spartacus I'd put somewhere in the 7's.

[Arya The Assassin]

actually the score at present is trending up, IIRC it was getting about 9.0 for the first couple of episodes. it definately isn't a 9.5 for me though, not at present.

The score dropped to 9.4 after 8.000 votes, but it has now increased to 9.5 again after reaching 10.000 votes. It's very rare to see a IMDB-score increase after more votes have been cast (if the initial score is very high, it tends to drop over time).

[kingof7]

For the amount of money that went into this show it simply had to be done well. I think they really made an effort to put together a cast and crew that could succeed.

[Lannister_Lion]

GRRM fans would only be loyal if the show follows the books plotline. Which it does. It (due to Martins influence, I'm sure) also includes scenes that are not within the pages, but tie up any points missed due to screening constaints. GRRM delivers in every aspect, the man is a genius.

Tolkien readers (for the most part) have been disappointed by Jacksons effort.

Bernard Cornwall wrote an excellent version of the Arthurian legend, after one episode of Camelot, I can safely say that I would be more interested in watching last nights dinner flush down the pan that subjecting myself to that travesty again.

How many book to screen adaptations have been marginally decent?

Not very many by my count.

[ferthepoet]

GRRM fans would only be loyal if the show follows the books plotline. Which it does. It (due to Martins influence, I'm sure) also includes scenes that are not within the pages, but tie up any points missed due to screening constaints. GRRM delivers in every aspect, the man is a genius.

Tolkien readers (for the most part) have been disappointed by Jacksons effort.

Bernard Cornwall wrote an excellent version of the Arthurian legend, after one episode of Camelot, I can safely say that I would be more interested in watching last nights dinner flush down the pan that subjecting myself to that travesty again.

How many book to screen adaptations have been marginally decent?

Not very many by my count.

The thing is ASOIAF is better suited to be adapted by TV, Martin background was as a TV writer and he always was thinking of the perfect tv series without limitations of budget and a cast of thousand while writing the books. So for example while Lord of the Ring required a whole change of genre (from lyrical epic to action/adventure) in order to have any appeal in visual medium (because the books are mostly filled with songs and boring descriptions of landscape) the ASOIAF series can be directly translated into screen format and be engaging, the problem is budget.

[Tywin's bastard]

GRRM fans would only be loyal if the show follows the books plotline. Which it does. It (due to Martins influence, I'm sure) also includes scenes that are not within the pages, but tie up any points missed due to screening constaints. GRRM delivers in every aspect, the man is a genius.

Tolkien readers (for the most part) have been disappointed by Jacksons effort.

Bernard Cornwall wrote an excellent version of the Arthurian legend, after one episode of Camelot, I can safely say that I would be more interested in watching last nights dinner flush down the pan that subjecting myself to that travesty again.

How many book to screen adaptations have been marginally decent?

Not very many by my count.

I'd say that the show follows the books so closely because D&D are such big fans of them. They were the ones letting GRRM in on things and he doesn't have any real power, D&D are the ones making the final decisions. I think they for the most part have held a very good line since it's been very close to the book story, but still have offered something new as well. If you make an adaptation you of course have to follow the original for it to make sense to make an adaptation but real artistry also requires some liberties taken as a pure copy is never art. It's a fine line to tread.

As for the LotR trilogy, I'd actually say that Tolkien readers for the most part were happy with his movies. I was very active on different boards through the making and release of those movies and the vast majority thought Jackson did a great job and found much joy in finding all the little details and homages that only readers would ever understand. Then there's, as always, the vocal doom and gloom minority but the majority of those forum people mostly found them annoying.

[Which Tyler]

Bernard Cornwall wrote an excellent version of the Arthurian legend, after one episode of Camelot, I can safely say that I would be more interested in watching last nights dinner flush down the pan that subjecting myself to that travesty again.

How many book to screen adaptations have been marginally decent?

Surely Camelot isn't even pretending any link to the Cornwell series. And it's hardly like he has a monopoly on writing about Arthur.

Bit harsh to imply that it's a failed adaptation of his novels when it is nothing whatsoever to do with his novels.