[BOOK SPOILERS] Game of Thrones' influence on future?

[Anomandaris86]

Of course, it's the first time that a fantasy series has really taken the spotlight on TV, same way that LOTR was the first big occurence on film. So there's obviously possibilities of fantasy and sci-fi becoming more prominent. But that's not what I want to talk about. There's something else I want to talk about that isn't mentioned that much - the fact that it has a fluid cast of characters and doesn't follow the guidelines of regular TV programming. As D&D said, with almost every other show they get most of their cast in the first season, and then most new characters are special "guest stars" who appear for one season and then go away again. In the case of the Sopranos, this usually meant that the guy would get killed, and if I think back it's actually fairly predictable. Of course in TV shows there are also some characters that get introduced in later seasons and then stay along for the whole ride (usually less well-known actors), but in pretty much all cases it's true that the majority of main characters are already there in season 1, and new characters are introduced slowly so as not to cause confusion. The other thing that is standard for each TV show is that they clearly have a "star" or group of stars that viewers can more or less count on to keep appearing, and then possibly die in the last season ONLY. Well, Game of Thrones has already turned that last one on its head, and the first one will also be turned on its head in a big way as well when season 2 as well as later seasons (if they are approved) start airing as well.

Because we already know there are LOTS of new characters that will be introduced in season 2, some of whom will be extremely important: Stannis, Mellisandre, the Boltons, the Greyjoys, Jeyne Westerling, the Tyrells - the list goes on and on. Book 3 we get Thoros of Myr, Mance Rayder, all those from Dany's POV; book 4 gives us Euron Greyjoy and the Dornish characters for the first time, etc, etc. None of these will be "special guest stars" that only appear for one season; almost all of them are there to stay. Possible exceptions could be Oberyn Martel and...who else? I'm trying to rack my brain and remember any big characters that get introduced and die in the same book. The other thing is that characters can start out major and become minor, or vice versa, or switch back and forth. Like Jaime Lannister. He's fairly important in the first book and season, in the second book he almost drops from the radar, and then in book 3 he becomes a major character. They've already said that they plan to beef up his role a little bit in season 2, but there's not much they can do while still sticking to the books. He CAN'T have as much screen time as he did in season 1. Then there's Theon Greyjoy, an even better example, who is fairly important in season 1, will become majorly important in season 2, and then pretty much disappear for probably multiple seasons. However, by all accounts he isn’t dead yet, so who knows what sort of role he can play in the future? If he ends up coming back later in the series, that could be two or more seasons where he’s been gone after such a major role in season 2. All we know is that he’s supposedly “being flayed alive” by Ramsey Bolton, and if that is true, what could they do for him during those seasons – insert random scenes of torture? I don’t think so. Nope, he'd pretty much be gone from those seasons. Of course if he’s actually dead or will die from the torture this doesn’t matter, but something tells me that his role isn’t done yet (knowing George) and if that’s the case his character will be like Jaime, only much more so. Beric Dondarion? He gets one brief scene and a single line in the first season, and in all likelihood won't be shown at all in the second season, just mentioned like in the book, and then becomes very present and important in season 3/4. That will surely test a viewer's memory.

And of course, there are important characters that keep dying, as well. Ned Stark being the prime example in season 1. And due to all the marketing that HBO did with him front and center and with him being the biggest name actor on the show, he came across as even more of a main character than he was in the book. And while most of the people upset about his death were upset because they were attached to the character, others were upset simply because they were tuning in to watch him as the star. I remember an interview with the president of HBO where he responded (rightfully) to those complaints something like, "People should be tuning in because they're engaged in the story, not because they're attached to any particular character or actor." Yes, that's the way it SHOULD be, but until now no show (that I can think of) has been bold enough to challenge the conventions in such a way. And Ned certainly won't be the only one. I'm sure many viewers now are thinking (like I did), "Hey, Ned dying is just clearing the way for Robb to become an even better ruler." That may be true but...think again. Or when Renly becomes a contending king in season 2, they may think "hey, his role is really going somewhere," only to see him killed not long after. And surely Joffrey and Tywin will stick around so that they stay as the main villains? Nope, think again, and also there are no main villains.

So, if Game of Thrones goes along for the whole ride (and I think if a season 3 gets approved that's a pretty good indication) it will be unlike any other show on TV in terms of how it regards its' characters and actors. People won't know whether major characters will survive or not, regardless of if they're introduced in later seasons or the first season. They won't know if minor characters will later become major, or if major characters will become minor, or if characters who become minor will later on become major again. Viewers will soon (if they haven't already) realize that they are just along for the ride, and that knowing which actors will be playing in which season will tell them absolutely nothing.

I consider this to be the next evolution of television. Around fifteen years ago, we had our fist evolution where TV shows started for the fist time to become evolving dramas with their own story arcs rather than simply serialized episodes revolving around certain characters that don't need to be watched in any particular order. Now, it seems, the time for the second evolution is upon us: where TV shows for the first time will give primary consideration to the STORY, without any regard to the actors. Of course, it had to be an adaption of a popular book series that did it first; it would have simply been too bold for an original drama. But that doesn't mean it has to be the case for future dramas. Of course it will clear the way for more adaptations, but if Game of Thrones goes all the way I think it very well may cause serious ripples to the point where original dramas start treating their characters in the same way.

And that's what I'm looking forward to the most. I want to see an original drama like Game of Thrones. I think it may take a couple of decades before it really hits off, but if Game of Thrones is successful and finishes its run I think it's only a matter of time. Of course, if it gets cancelled after season 2 it may just be a failed experiment. I hope that doesn't happen, because it can be the show that pushes other shows to realize their full potential.

So, what do you guys think? Do you share my optimism, or do you think that Game of Thrones will always be special, even if it's successful? Share your thoughts.

[Black Sheep]

First thing first, watch The Wire.

[Anomandaris86]

Seen it.

[robodontopus]

Yeah, The Wire does pretty much everything you described. Bringing in new characters and locations every season, killing important people off, turning major characters into minor and vice versa, etc. The books are actually similar to the Wire in a lot of ways.

[Anomandaris86]

Did The Wire kill McNulty or any of the other cops in the first season? Hell, they had to wait until season 3 to kill

Stringer Bell.

And yeah there were new characters each season but the ratio of them to existing characters was less. I'll give that it's more adventurous in those regards but it's still not in the ballpark of Game of Thrones.

[Wolfmage]

Did The Wire kill McNulty or any of the other cops in the first season? Hell, they had to wait until season 3 to kill

Stringer Bell.

And yeah there were new characters each season but the ratio of them to existing characters was less. I'll give that it's more adventurous in those regards but it's still not in the ballpark of Game of Thrones.

Stringer Bell was certainly not the only character of consequence who had fate meted out to them in The Wire. I mean, D'Angelo goes to prison in season 1 whilst Avon gets off scot-free, and then he is murdered in season 2 anyway.

[mr. peasant]

Maybe I'm just being too cynical but I don't think Game of Thrones will be that influential in the grand scheme of things. The evolution of arc-driven stories to what it is today is one that took decades to make; starting with the addition/reduction of characters to the cast and/or change to the premise between seasons, as well as the occasional retool. The key thing is that it was a very gradual change and it took awhile for audiences to really accept the faster-changing settings of today's shows. What GoT will be doing, if following squarely to the books, is have a regularly changing and rotating cast of characters; which is a huge leap from current conventions.

Which brings me to my second doubt - which is that the show will be able to follow the books that closely - in terms of which characters are absent in which seasons. The reason for this is the respective actors' availability. The show can't completely write a character out (at least not with confidence) knowing that they will need to bring him/her back a few seasons down the line as the actor playing said character might move on to other projects in the intervening time period. And rightly so since actors still have bills to pay and do need to work. While other, original shows have done it in the past, that's because the actors in question happened to be available. Had that not been the case, the story would have progressed down a different path. In other words, very often, real life writes the plot.

[Anomandaris86]

They can put whatever in the contract that they can agree upon.

They can say for instance, "You will be in season 1 and 2, but not 3, and then return in season 4" or whatever else they want. They can fine-tune the contracts into whatever circumstances they will anticipate. And then it's not a matter of what the desires of the actor may end up being later on; if he signed the contract he is obligated to it.

[mr. peasant]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if a contract can be written up as such - i.e. on contract for a few years, then off contract for a fixed period and then back on without having to negotiate a new contract. However, I do know most work contracts are generally written for continuous periods of time. Even if one could be written like that, how many actors would be happy to sign it? It would severely limit their work opportunities during the intervening year since they can't take on any long-term jobs and be limited to guest spots or part-time jobs.

[Anomandaris86]

I would say that for an actor who, let's say, hadn't done anything else, it would still be considered a golden opportunity. As one example.

[Sega AM2]

Of course, it's the first time that a fantasy series has really taken the spotlight on TV, same way that LOTR was the first big occurence on film. So there's obviously possibilities of fantasy and sci-fi becoming more prominent.

It will never be as popular as LOTR or Harry Potter though. If anything has influenced more fantasy works being put into production it is those franchises. And if you expand the scope of television fantasy you have shows like Xena Warrior Princess, Buffy, True Blood, and even LOST that have been popular and prominent. None of those are as good as Game of Thrones in my opinion but certainly at least Harry Potter is the big winner in modern fantasy in terms of influence.

And LOST spawned bad imitations like V and The Event amongst others. Sure it's not the kind of influence you want but it's influence nevertheless. And before Game of Thrones you had The Tudors, ROME, and a few other medieval/historical dramas that have many similarities to Game of Thrones. I don't think we'll be seeing too many high fantasy series coming to television anytime soon and certainly none on the level of Game of Thrones. If anything ROME's creation and canceling probably had more influence on Game of Thrones than Game of Thrones will have on future fantasy series especially in terms of financing.

But that's not what I want to talk about. There's something else I want to talk about that isn't mentioned that much - the fact that it has a fluid cast of characters and doesn't follow the guidelines of regular TV programming. As D&D said, with almost every other show they get most of their cast in the first season, and then most new characters are special "guest stars" who appear for one season and then go away again.

Both OZ and The Wire broke this convention years ago. Giant cast of important characters, many die unexpectedly, show is recast constantly when new characters are introduced. The Wire's second, fourth, and fifth seasons expand in scope dramatically and required tons of new actors, sets, and filming locations. Out of nowhere in season two of The Wire the show moved to the docks...then in season four we have the schools. Even season three with its political angle was something very new to the show. And season five with The Sun.

The other thing is that characters can start out major and become minor, or vice versa, or switch back and forth. Like Jaime Lannister. He's fairly important in the first book and season, in the second book he almost drops from the radar, and then in book 3 he becomes a major character.

This already happened in The Wire and a million other shows. Cops would leave the police force and then come back as teachers. Almost everyone from the Barksdale crew is written out from the show as are the dockworkers. They only return later in very small appearances. McNulty is almost non-existent in season four then becomes the main focus once again in season five. Avon vanishes then has a brief appearance later. OZ had characters vanish and reappear again many times as well. Sometimes they escapes from prison, other times they'd be hospitalized, other times they'd be in solitary confinement, and some would even die and come back as ghosts.

I remember an interview with the president of HBO where he responded (rightfully) to those complaints something like, "People should be tuning in because they're engaged in the story, not because they're attached to any particular character or actor." Yes, that's the way it SHOULD be, but until now no show (that I can think of) has been bold enough to challenge the conventions in such a way.

The Shield marketed a character heavily as a regular cast member and then killed him off in the first episode to shock viewers. Treme had a main character commit suicide out of nowhere in the show's first season and that character wasn't even accused of treason (the character died in the end of the penultimate episode of season one just like Game of Thrones). And main characters have been dieing in television shows for years. It was certainly interesting to see that HBO marketed Sean Been so heavily but it wasn't the first time that a main character was killed to advance the story including one that was marketed heavily. Treme did that a year earlier. It's probably the best example of it recently happening and most definitely was more fun to watch than shows like Dexter or Breaking Bad where you know the main characters wear invincible plot armor and there is no suspense. "Oh my god will Dexter get caught this season?!" um no because we know there is another season coming up next year...

SCREAM also did this a while ago (1996, same year AGOT came out), they marketed Drew Barrymore in all of the posters and trailers, and brilliantly killed her in the very first scene to the surprise of everyone in attendance.

That being said, seeing the reaction from non-readers was beyond awesome, and was more exciting than watching the episode for me. It was as fun as seeing people react the endings of LOST and The Sopranos even.

And that's what I'm looking forward to the most. I want to see an original drama like Game of Thrones. I think it may take a couple of decades before it really hits off, but if Game of Thrones is successful and finishes its run I think it's only a matter of time.

"Original drama"? This isn't Treme or The Wire...this is an adaptation of a very successful set of novels. Game of Thrones wasn't written out of nowhere, there is clear evidence of success with the story, GRRM's novels are loved by fans and critics. Dexter, True Blood, and many other shows are based off of novels and are hardly original as well. The Wire was virtually unknown when it hit HBO and Dominic West's agent predicted that the show would be a failure and be canceled after one season because the show had to live on its own reputation (what a prediction that was).

So, what do you guys think? Do you share my optimism, or do you think that Game of Thrones will always be special, even if it's successful? Share your thoughts.

HBO cancelled Deadwood which is considered by many critics to only be surpassed by The Wire and The Sopranos. And HBO tried three times to cancel The Wire and nearly succeeded in canceling the fourth season. And The Wire is the best show of all time. Who knows what HBO will do with this series? If they still force David Simon to contract his shows by season then the threat of Game of Thrones being canceled will always loom large unfortunately. And if GRRM fails to finish the books? Or if he has to expand the story into nine or ten books? Or if the seventh book is just insane with Dragons, Others, and giant battles and would need a $200 million budget?

[Anomandaris86]

It will never be as popular as LOTR or Harry Potter though. If anything has influenced more fantasy works being put into production it is those franchises. And if you expand the scope of television fantasy you have shows like Xena Warrior Princess, Buffy, True Blood, and even LOST that have been popular and prominent. None of those are as good as Game of Thrones in my opinion but certainly at least Harry Potter is the big winner in modern fantasy in terms of influence.

And LOST spawned bad imitations like V and The Event amongst others. Sure it's not the kind of influence you want but it's influence nevertheless. And before Game of Thrones you had The Tudors, ROME, and a few other medieval/historical dramas that have many similarities to Game of Thrones. I don't think we'll be seeing too many high fantasy series coming to television anytime soon and certainly none on the level of Game of Thrones. If anything ROME's creation and canceling probably had more influence on Game of Thrones than Game of Thrones will have on future fantasy series especially in terms of financing.

Let me rephrase it then: it's the first really mature fantasy show that takes itself seriously.

Both OZ and The Wire broke this convention years ago. Giant cast of important characters, many die unexpectedly, show is recast constantly when new characters are introduced. The Wire's second, fourth, and fifth seasons expand in scope dramatically and required tons of new actors, sets, and filming locations. Out of nowhere in season two of The Wire the show moved to the docks...then in season four we have the schools. Even season three with its political angle was something very new to the show. And season five with The Sun.

The thing about the Wire is that it did all of this in a very predictable way, with each season braching out into a new area. Season 2 took it to the docks, and by extention, the source of the drugs. Season 3 added the political realm. Season 4 then went to the schools, and finally season 5 added the news. These were all added on top of the already existing characters; aside from those that died, most of the already established characters carried on in their arcs. The only exception is season 2, where most of those characters disappeared for the rest of show. I'm not saying The Wire didn't have any character fluidity, and I'll admit it probably has more than any other show I've seen, but it's still not on the level of Game of Thrones. Surely you can admit that?

Don't know anything about Oz.

Cops would leave the police force and then come back as teachers.

So? That's just a progressing character arc, not an example of becoming more or less minor.

Almost everyone from the Barksdale crew is written out from the show

Um, what? They pretty much all stick until they die. I can't think of any one of them that just disapears.

as are the dockworkers. They only return later in very small appearances.

Granted on those.

McNulty is almost non-existent in season four then becomes the main focus once again in season five.

Non-existant is not the right word. He definitely had less of a role to play, but he still had fairly regular appearances to make.

Avon vanishes then has a brief appearance later.

By that point his character arc is pretty much done. He's in prison; there's nothing else to say, or show.

The Shield marketed a character heavily as a regular cast member and then killed him off in the first episode to shock viewers.

First episodes don't count, as there's not even enough time to establish him. No one could even be considered a main character under those circumstances.

Treme had a main character commit suicide out of nowhere in the show's first season and that character wasn't even accused of treason (the character died in the end of the penultimate episode of season one just like Game of Thrones).

Haven't seen Treme, but was he "the" main character, or "a" main character?

"Original drama"? This isn't Treme or The Wire...this is an adaptation of a very successful set of novels. Game of Thrones wasn't written out of nowhere, there is clear evidence of success with the story, GRRM's novels are loved by fans and critics.

Um, no shit? I noted that. What I'm talking about are possibilities for future shows.

HBO cancelled Deadwood which is considered by many critics to only be surpassed by The Wire and The Sopranos.

I'll beg to differ with those critics. My response is good riddance. I was always lukewarm regarding the series since a lot of the episodes meandered around without much plot development, something that Game of Thrones definitely won't be doing. And the way season 3 ended made me hate it.

And The Wire is the best show of all time.

I'll beg to differ there as well. In my opinion it's an average show. It was too naturalistic for my liking, but my biggest gripe is how they made everything cyclical in the end. Not only do I consider it bad storytelling, but the way they did it actually felt forced. The integrity of the story should come before any need to deliver a "message," in my view.

[ferthepoet]

I think people greatly exagerate the uniqueness of Game of Thrones format for television, when I was reading the book I always got the feel its structure was perfect for TV, there is of course a problem of budget due to the number of characters, locations and special effects required, but that's a total different thing than a problem of dramatic structure

[SFA-OK]

I don't see the show really being that influential unless the writing improves and the show, as it progresses, somehow sets it apart from other shows in it's genre. Honestly, that hasn't happened so far. The look and feel of the show is a mirror image of any number of Hollywood fantasy movies, which is one of my gripes with it thus far.

The way characters are introduced, die off, etc. is novel in some ways but without the direction and writing for the adaptation I just don't see it being that influential.