sj4iy Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 You are absolutely right that things are not just utilitarian. There are artistic merits for certain things. However this is an adaptation. The show isn't supposed to show D+D's artistic merit, it is supposed to show Martin's. None of the artistic stuff like themes and metaphors should be changed from the books. But anyway I feel we're misunderstanding each other so agree to disagree. For the bottom line is - if it was logistically possible to keep things like in the books then in the vast majority of cases that is what should have happened. No, that's where you're confused. This IS D&D's canvas...this is their art form. Martin's canvas is the books. D&D are the ones who are painting the story on this canvas, not Martin. They are the artists of the show- you wouldn't say that "Le Nozze di Figaro" isn't supposed to show Mozart's artistic talent simply because he took the story from Beaumarchais' play- it's a different medium, and Mozart's talents were creating music, not writing plays. Just like D&D's talents are writing screenplays, not books. They've made a successful adaptation that even the author himself never thought would be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 No, that's where you're confused. This IS D&D's canvas...this is their art form. Martin's canvas is the books. D&D are the ones who are painting the story on this canvas, not Martin. They are the artists of the show- you wouldn't say that "Le Nozze di Figaro" isn't supposed to show Mozart's artistic talent simply because he took the story from Beaumarchais' play- it's a different medium, and Mozart's talents were creating music, not writing plays. Just like D&D's talents are writing screenplays, not books. They've made a successful adaptation that even the author himself never thought would be possible. I'm not confused, I simply disagree with you as to what an adaptation should be. An adaptation should be recreating the original work as faithfully as possible. Or at least that is what the first adaptation in a certain medium should be. This is not D+D's canvas, this is a recreation of Martin's - or at least that's how I believe it should be. If D+D want their own canvas they can make their own Intellectual Property. But of course they aren't capable of making a success out of that in my opinion, hence why they work with someone else's work. So again - agree to disagree because our opinions of what an adaptation should be are so wildly different that there is little point in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daske Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Whatever you think of the show, in terms of faithfulness it is one of the closest character-for-character, scene-for-scene of any fantasy book to tv/film. And probably up there with the closest non-genre examples (if you exclude the classics, and even they often get chopped about). Some of us that view the show glass-half full have been watching adaptations of our favourite books/comics be changed almost beyond recognition for decades - where butchered really was an appropriate term! (e.g. weirdling modules instead of Voice in Dune, Galactus the dust cloud in Fantastic Four, everything about the Planet of the Apes re-make, the story-line in Omega Man and so on). And most of those that didn't crash and burn were changed out all proportion (e.g. Blade Runner or the original Planet of the Apes, or the endings of Stardust and Watchmen). A series of the faithfulness as say Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes is extremely rare, and even that was episodic in nature so far easier to pull off. I just can't see where all these seven-year long completely faithful adaptations are hiding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I'm not confused, I simply disagree with you as to what an adaptation should be. An adaptation should be recreating the original work as faithfully as possible. Or at least that is what the first adaptation in a certain medium should be. This is not D+D's canvas, this is a recreation of Martin's - or at least that's how I believe it should be. If D+D want their own canvas they can make their own Intellectual Property. But of course they aren't capable of making a success out of that in my opinion, hence why they work with someone else's work. So again - agree to disagree because our opinions of what an adaptation should be are so wildly different that there is little point in this discussion. You think it should be a closer adaptation, and I think it's about as close as an adaptation can feasibly be and still work as a tv show. That's the real difference of opinion we have. But that doesn't change the fact that this is D&D's interpretation and always has been- this is not Martin's and never was. That's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 You think it should be a closer adaptation, and I think it's about as close as an adaptation can feasibly be and still work as a tv show. That's the real difference of opinion we have. But that doesn't change the fact that this is D&D's interpretation and always has been- this is not Martin's and never was. That's a fact. No it isn't. I strongly disagree with that "fact". If D+D want something that is there's they should come up with their own setting. Nothing's stopping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 No it isn't. I strongly disagree with that "fact". If D+D want something that is there's they should come up with their own setting. Nothing's stopping them. And if GRRM wanted his exact vision translated to the screen in the exact way he wanted it, he would have written the screenplays himself. Nothing was stopping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 And if GRRM wanted his exact vision translated to the screen in the exact way he wanted it, he would have written the screenplays himself. Nothing was stopping him. Except you know...writing his books. Ultimately I think Martin was expecting 7 or 8 seasons of Season 1 levels of faithfulness and if that had been what we'd all gotten every one would be happy. But unfortunately Season 1 was rather misleading (not deliberately mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 A series of the faithfulness as say Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes is extremely rare, and even that was episodic in nature so far easier to pull off. Speaking of Sherlock, Gatiss and Moffat should be ashamed of their butchery. Arthur Conan Doyle is probably turning in his grave right now. And yeah, someone please impale Ridely Scott with a spear, screaming PHIIILIIIIIIIIIP!!!!!! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Except you know...writing his books. Ultimately I think Martin was expecting 7 or 8 seasons of Season 1 levels of faithfulness and if that had been what we'd all gotten every one would be happy. But unfortunately Season 1 was rather misleading (not deliberately mind). Except, you know- Martin has his vision exactly as he was expecting it, in his books. He's stated time and time again that the show is not going to be the books, and that changes are necessary because the show can never be the books. Unfortunately, some of the book readers don't seem to get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 On to a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.