Do you think if they had more episodes per season they'd be more faithful?

[imaGOTbluray]

So you'd be cool with D&D introducing a time machine that brings the cast to modern times where they all get an apartment together and adjust to 21st century life with lots of comedic gold?

Thatd be totally sweet - there arent enough comedies i miss the seinfeld cheers days.

A guy rings the doorbell selling something.

Hodor answers.

The guys goes thru his big long spiel.

Hodor just says "Hodor".

Guy eventually gets fustrated & leaves.

Hodo says 'Hodor ?"

Gold jerry....gold !!

[PatrickStormborn]

Absolutely not. As others have noted, most of the changes (or unfaithfulness to the books) come from adaptation choices, from translating a story from a book to a screen, to the pacing, storyline and character concerns that a TV series must have.

Obviously, even with more episodes they would NOT be able to include more storylines: they're trying to have as few storylines as possible to avoid the episodes being too unfocused and characters too far away from one another. Having more episodes doesn't solve that problem.

As it is now, one of the most frequent criticisms the series faces is that it's too slow! That there are "boring/filler/slow-paced" episodes, and that only the last few episodes include climatic events. It's only the hardcore books fans that want more repetitive scenes and a slower pace to include more pages from the book.

This season is a very good example of a good adaptation of two bloated books (I like both AFFC and ADWD but I also happen to like this season very much): take Cersei's storyline for example. In the books, there are many (perhaps too many) chapters devoted to Cersei making mistake after mistake, almost to the point of being comical. Yes, the political-talky chapters are great for a book, but not for a TV series. What did D&D do? They streamlined the storyline so it would focus on Cersei vs. Tyrells vs. Faith Millitant (in other words, to focus on established characters and a new interesting party). That makes Cersei's downfall quicker, and perhaps less predictable, as she doesn't make that many mistakes. You may like it or not, but I don't think that a non-reader would want to see additional episodes of Cersei being paranoid and making bad decissions at the Small Council meetings before getting arrested.

Another example could be Jon's storyline (which I think many agree that it's the best storyline of the season so far): in ADWD there are 13 (thirteen!) chapters for Jon, all of them variations on "Jon makes wise decissions but fails to convince his men". The show streamlines the storyline, focusing on the conflict with the wildlings (again,eliminating minor plot-points, including some really stupid onces, such as Mace's fake-death) and condensing different events (Jon offers lands to the wildlings, Jon sends Vals to search for the wildlings, Jon negotiates with Tormund, Jon sends men to get the wildlings south....) into a single event with includes a hgue action setpiece and is about the real final threat (White Walkers). I think this particular storyline is a clear example of an improved storyline from the books. What would we get if we had more episodes? A few more scenes between Jon's elections as a LC and the Hardhome mission of Jon giving orders and the NW looking angry? We don't need that, we got it already. Let the plot advance.

I disagree with all of this, particularly the bolded. There are literally so many successful TV shows that are built around "political-talky" scenes - in fact, that's what made GoT so popular back in seasons 1 and 2.

The reason the show feels slow is because the characters have been developed so poorly after season 3. Prioritising shocking plot developments over characterisation means that the show needs to keep adding twists to sustain audience interest. It also means that the smaller moments that mean so much to book readers fall flat in the show.

With more episodes, characters would be allowed to develop more effectively. It also means that characters could appear in fewer episodes and be used more effectively.

[Facebookless Man]

I disagree with all of this, particularly the bolded. There are literally so many successful TV shows that are built around "political-talky" scenes - in fact, that's what made GoT so popular back in seasons 1 and 2.

The reason the show feels slow is because the characters have been developed so poorly after season 3. Prioritising shocking plot developments over characterisation means that the show needs to keep adding twists to sustain audience interest. It also means that the smaller moments that mean so much to book readers fall flat in the show.

This so much. KL politics is what made the show. And the vast majority of successful TV shows are ALL about character development, not videogame dragons, cock jokes and child rape.

It's quite telling that the best thing about this season is a succession of the most trite action movie cliches.

[BalerionTheCat]

This so much. KL politics is what made the show. And the vast majority of successful TV shows are ALL about character development, not videogame dragons, cock jokes and child rape.

It's quite telling that the best thing about this season is a succession of the most trite action movie cliches.

:agree:

I'm not a big TV fan. But there are shows that are all political games. In our current time, or from some historical period. They have no dragons, no fire gods and zombies. But they are very good success anyway. If D&D had not focused only on the rapes and murders (half of them invented by them), the show would be twice as enjoyable, and not in the sorry state it is now.

[RedViperHD]

I know a lot of people have expressed frustration with some/many of the adaptation choices the HBO show makes to ASOIAF. Do you guys think that if they were allotted 12 or 13 episodes per season the writers/showrunners/whoever-makes-the-calls would stay more faithful to the novels?

I know time is a huge constraint and that has only been exacerbated this season or at least (for me) has become super noticeable; one only needs look at Dorne. They're trying to add stuff from the books left and right but it just seems so half-assed that it's taking away from more important things that they've actually set up. I wonder if they had just two or three more hours a season, if they'd be more loyal, or at least be able to be more loyal.

What are you guys' thoughts?

Nope. It's a medium that's completely different. Suggesting that a book is more difficult to create than a show/film is crazy, and suggesting that there is less of an art to a film is equally as crazy. There is an entire visual language that goes into shot selection, art direction, lighting, color, etc.. And on top of that, the medium demands that you still satisfy a fan base. There are too many awful writers that get more respect than filmmakers just because they wrote their ideas down, physically on paper. Suggesting that a film should be loyal to a book is insulting to visual mediums.

[robasp2]

@OP

Yrs

Book 3 was split into 2 seasons and things were good enough. Though not everything was included.

But when 2 books are cimbined into 1 season, such disasters occour

[TepidHands]

What is an example of a Television that has done a much better job than Game of Thrones?

"Lonesome Dove."

"Band of Brothers."

"John Adams."

"Roots."

"Brideshead Revisited."

"I, Claudius."

And Starz isn't doing too badly with "Outlander."

[artihcus022]

Suggesting that a book is more difficult to create than a show/film is crazy, and suggesting that there is less of an art to a film is equally as crazy.

Look if we want to get into difficulty, its more dangerous and difficult to be a miner working in a shaft of a coalmine or a construction worker welding beams than it is to do anything else. As far as art is concerned, trying to measure in terms of labor/difficult is a meaningless in the extreme.

But since we are yes, it was far more difficult for GRRM to create ASOIAF than for the showrunners to produce the show. It took GRRM all his life to do a story he and he alone created and which did not exist before him, whereas the showrunners what, pitched, shot and cast the pilot in three-four years.

There is an entire visual language that goes into shot selection, art direction, lighting, color, etc..

By that aesthetic standards, Game of Thrones is bad because the lighting is always of one type, we always see rooms and interiors/exteriors shot in a fixed manner, no variation and no real sense of landscape and space. The art direction is competent in some respects but not so in other areas.

And on top of that, the medium demands that you still satisfy a fan base.

And books don't?

There are too many awful writers that get more respect than filmmakers just because they wrote their ideas down, physically on paper.

Is there not a document called the Shooting Script usually prepared by directors. What does choice of paper(or Computer/Typewriter) have to do with anything?

Suggesting that a film should be loyal to a book is insulting to visual mediums.

The likes of Orson Welles and Scorsese and others would point out that the challenge is to create images worthy of the text, i.e. as layered, experimental and interesting as the books they adapt. The same is not true of the TV show.

[HexMachina]

nvm

[sleath56]

What is an example of a Television that has done a much better job than Game of Thrones?

Are you for real?

War and Peace, for one.

GoT is not a great adaptation by any standard of apologism. The fundamental point of a good adaptation is faithful, or at least remains loyal to the original text. Anyone can see that this season reveals the show has completely lost any integrity it had in purporting to be an loyal portrayal of the books.

[BalerionTheCat]

GoT is not a great adaptation by any standard of apologism. The fundamental point of a good adaptation is faithful, or at least remains loyal to the original text. Anyone can see that this season reveals the show has completely lost any integrity it had in purporting to be an loyal portrayal of the books.

:agree: 100%

I generally don't mind too much when they change something, when, where or how someone dies. But they are replacing the Ice and Fire battle or whatever it is in the books, by a completely invented character (they just pick the name from the books), leading the Others against ... who exactly?

[Caerl Targaryen]

No. D&D would just inject more of their own fan fiction.

And this sums everything up perfectly. They would absolutely inject more of their fan fiction into the show. They barely have enough time to cover material as it is and they aren't bothering to follow the core story. Why would they change that if they had more time? We'd just get more invented, poorly written material.

GoT is not a great adaptation by any standard of apologism. The fundamental point of a good adaptation is faithful, or at least remains loyal to the original text. Anyone can see that this season reveals the show has completely lost any integrity it had in purporting to be an loyal portrayal of the books.

Well-said. I'd argue that seasons 2 and 4 showed some pretty serious warning signs about where they might be headed too. Season 3 wasn't perfect but I feel that it was much more faithful in spirit to the third book (for the most part) than seasons 2, 4, and 5 were to the books they were supposedly based on.