Fair Game: a documentary about Game of Thrones

[rosehustle1]

3 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

That's odd, for me it's entirely the opposite. There are literally countless of "Rant and Rave" and "Criticize without repercussions" threads, sometimes even more than one at a time, which are not only opened by the actual administrators in several cases but also the only threads in the entire forum (as far as I know) where dissenting opinions are explicitly forbidden. No other group in the fandom gets this preferred treatment, so to say show haters are some kind of persecuted people is like white middle-class Americans claiming they're persecuted for their religion because Starbucks won't put a picture of a cross on their cups. The biggest and most frequent expressions of vitriol I've seen are reserved for the show and D&D. 

On this site there is a general RR thread and one for specific episodes but that's it. All the other threads are centered on show fans and positive criticism. If people are breaking the rules in those threads then that's another discussion. But I wasn't talking about this site as much as I was referring to WOTW, WIC, tumblr, twitter etc. And I'm not saying flames don't happen from the other side, I'm talking about engaging in civil disagreement. Any type of dissenting idea or opinion toward GOT is always met with the most over the top reactions. And I don't think your analogy is accurate considering there is more overwhelming positive praise and positive criticism of this show on most social media platforms than negative allowed.

[rosehustle1]

8 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

Out of those complaint there is one valid one. Baby Sam should be older. Everything else is explainable.

Travel times are all over the place because they have always been all over the place. There are plenty seemingly illogical travel times in the books. For things like that you just need to accept a tautological argument that it could happen because it did happen.

Stannis was slow because he had a big army in the snow, Littlefinger was fast because maybe he had a ship.

Roose married Walda before the Red Wedding so logically it has been at least 9 months since then.

The Sand Snakes obviously travelled to where Trystane's boat was, probably by another boat, boarded and killed him.

Those are only inconsistencies if you choose to believe the event are impossible.

 

And characters acting differently depending on plot has been a book hallmark. We have countless Tyrion thoughts about Tysha but none from Jaime in his internal monologue yet he blurts it out suddenly to Tyrion when Tyrion's plot demands it. Some specific examples from the show would help though.

But see I don't think it's good writing that we as an audience have to come up with reasons for these things to make sense. It shouldn't all be off-screen and us putting the dots together. And in terms of characters, there is a difference in a character gradually changing as one goes through different experiences and changing drastically from one scene to the next just to make a plot point occur.

[The Anti-Targ]

There are some actors who just turn up, take direction, say their lines and go home. Famously Michael Gambon said that about his playing Dumbledore.

I think actors may possibly research historical people about whom a lot is known and has been written a lot more than they will research fictional people. Perhaps the reason a lot of actors from GoT said they didn't want to be surprised was because they didn't want to say something that might be more insulting to readers, like "Why would I read that shit? I hate fantasy.". I doubt there's any kind of grand conspiracy about the adaptation or show production in relation to this not reading the source material thing, nor that the actors actually have read ahead and are plain lying about it.

I find it interesting that the promo video focussed on that particular element, as I don't think it's worthy of much attention as an overall critique of the production or the critical reaction to it. I didn't realise how bad that bit of Talisa, Robb dialogue was until it was highlighted. That really was bad writing. Even among most modern-day marriages the only time getting pregnant would be possibly upsetting would be if there was an explicit agreement that pregnancy would be avoided. In most other situations it would be at least a happy surprise.

I'll still watch the whole thing and I expect to enjoy it for what it is.

[Gustavo Fringed Sleeves]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I find it interesting that the promo video focussed on that particular element...

It was not exactly a promo video though. Just the introduction, i.e. the first 7 minutes of the final product.

[Neds Secret]

4 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Yes, probably the problem is that it shouldn't be a deviation if they were actually doing an adaptation, just like normal adaptations do with their book sources.

Actually, having more info from the book source, especially if it's weritten in POV's chapters is always better for the actor to explore the character. To have more insighnt on the personality.

But of course, if they are doing 180 degrees deviations why should they care? Anyway, they would improve what they have been told to do, without damaging the NEW character, I'm sure....and people would notice it. I'm sure.

I think it's at the point now where we all have to stop referring to GoT as an adaptation and start referring to it as an interpretation. D$Dumber are not at all trying to tell the AsoiaF story that is in the books at all anymore. What started in earnest when Robb Stark married Talisa the new age camp follower has now evolved because of D$Ds hubris into them telling their own story using characters created by GRRM. No characters anymore act anything like their book counterparts and hence we are now privileged to watch fanfic presented by showrunners who liked GRRMs story that much that they bought the company and then proceeded to change every single thing that was great about the product that they bought! MARVELLOUS!

[Good Guy Garlan]

4 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

I think it's at the point now where we all have to stop referring to GoT as an adaptation and start referring to it as an interpretation. D$Dumber are not at all trying to tell the AsoiaF story that is in the books at all anymore. What started in earnest when Robb Stark married Talisa the new age camp follower has now evolved because of D$Ds hubris into them telling their own story using characters created by GRRM. No characters anymore act anything like their book counterparts and hence we are now privileged to watch fanfic presented by showrunners who liked GRRMs story that much that they bought the company and then proceeded to change every single thing that was great about the product that they bought! MARVELLOUS!

Just wanna point out that every adaptation is an interpretation. In fact every time you read you're interpreting the text. 

[Neds Secret]

3 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Just wanna point out that every adaptation is an interpretation. In fact every time you read you're interpreting the text. 

Some "adaptations" take more liberties than others, I don't think many people would call GoT a faithful adaptation any longer, but I appreciate the heads up, cheers!

[Lautrec]

Well, looks like it hasn't come out yet. Despite the multiple release announcements. How appropriate. Maybe it will come bundled with tWoW.

[Crixus]

OK that's funny @Lautrec. 

 

[apovsic]

Holly cow, this topic has more drama than entire GoT!

[David Selig]

8 hours ago, Darkstream said:

But the need for this seperate thread is just because of the reason mentioned above. Seven forbid you try to bring up an issue or dislike of the show on any other thread and you are imedietly attacked and called a troll. We need that thread because show apologist want to turn a blind eye to everything wrong with the show and refuse to respect any opinion that differs from their own. 

Not my experience at all. I have bashed the show in countless threads over the years outside of the "without repercussions" ones and I have never been called a troll or personally attacked.

[Meera of Tarth]

10 hours ago, bad pussy said:

Out of those complaint there is one valid one. Baby Sam should be older. Everything else is explainable.

Travel times are all over the place because they have always been all over the place. There are plenty seemingly illogical travel times in the books. For things like that you just need to accept a tautological argument that it could happen because it did happen.

Stannis was slow because he had a big army in the snow, Littlefinger was fast because maybe he had a ship.

Roose married Walda before the Red Wedding so logically it has been at least 9 months since then.

The Sand Snakes obviously travelled to where Trystane's boat was, probably by another boat, boarded and killed him.

Those are only inconsistencies if you choose to believe the event are impossible.

 

And characters acting differently depending on plot has been a book hallmark. We have countless Tyrion thoughts about Tysha but none from Jaime in his internal monologue yet he blurts it out suddenly to Tyrion when Tyrion's plot demands it. Some specific examples from the show would help though.

Stannis and Jaime have two personalities and Sand Snakes teleport like LF, that's the "explanation"

 

11 hours ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

What? We didn't watch the same movies or read the same books, then. 

pure was a word I quoted from @bad pussy, but I'm not referring to 100% adapted. We were talking (or at least I was talking) about character adaptations. And IMO they are good adaptations in character terms and in development too.

11 hours ago, bad pussy said:

Most people would say Game of Thrones is a faithful adaptation of the books with well over 90% of material being the same and most of the smaller changes of little to no consequence.

Most people here are splitting hairs and I could easily find articles that find flaws in the adaptations of the works you listed.

For example

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Great-Gatsby-9-Big-Differences-Between-Book-Movie-37479-p4.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)#Reception

And now Game of Thrones is no longer an adaptation. And George R.R. Martin is not in the same league as the authors of those works.

 

From the wikipedia article you posted:

the worst things they say are about that film can't capture the depth of a series (obviously, it's a film!!!!!!!! something GOT isn't!!!!) and they are worried because Darcy's adaptation is not at the same level (in this review) than the previous ones. Everyone likes Elizabeth's as a character, and GO FIGURE! The previous ones (adaptations) are well-aclaimed by everybody, even for these reviewers.

And you can't compare Darcy's treatment to Jaime. Imagine Darcy was like Jaime in the show!!!!!!! Or the treatment of JB in the show compared to ED in Pride....just to put an example of a messed romance that the show used to care about.

Quote

Critics claimed the film's time constraints did not capture the depth and complexity of the television serials^[18] and called Wright's adaptation "obviously [not as] daring or revisionist" as the serial.^[110] JASNA president Joan Klingel Ray preferred the young age of Knightley and Macfadyen, saying that Jennifer Ehle had formerly been "a little too 'heavy' for the role."^[111] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, while praising Knightley for an outstanding performance "which lifts the whole movie", considered the casting of the leads "arguably a little more callow than Firth and Ehle." He does add that "Only a snob, a curmudgeon, or someone with necrophiliac loyalty to the 1995 BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle could fail to enjoy [Knightley's] performance.

These are the good things: they tried to do their best to capture the romantic aspect and they did, they didn't change the character's personality!!!

 

Quote

Given little instruction from the studio, screenwriter Deborah Moggach spent over two years adapting Pride and Prejudice for film. She had sole discretion with the early script, and eventually wrote approximately ten drafts.^[14][15]Realising it held "a perfect three-act structure",^[15] Moggach attempted to be as faithful to the original novel as possible, calling it "so beautifully shaped as a story – the ultimate romance about two people who think they hate each other but who are really passionately in love. I felt, 'If it's not broken, don't fix it.'"^[10] While she could not reproduce the novel's "fiercely wonderful dialogue in its entirety", she attempted to keep much of it.^[10]

[good girl]

3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Stannis and Jaime have two personalities and Sand Snakes teleport like LF, that's the "explanation"

 

pure was a word I quoted from @bad pussy, but I'm not referring to 100% adapted. We were talking (or at least I was talking) about character adaptations. And IMO they are good adaptations in character terms and in development too.

From the wikipedia article you posted:

the worst things they say are about that film can't capture the depth of a series (obviously, it's a film!!!!!!!! something GOT isn't!!!!) and they are worried because Darcy's adaptation is not at the same level (in this review) than the previous ones. Everyone likes Elizabeth's as a character, and GO FIGURE! The previous ones (adaptations) are well-aclaimed by everybody, even for these reviewers.

And you can't compare Darcy's treatment to Jaime. Imagine Darcy was like Jaime in the show!!!!!!! Or the treatment of JB in the show compared to ED in Pride....just to put an example of a messed romance that the show used to care about.

These are the good things: they tried to do their best to capture the romantic aspect and they did, they didn't change the character's personality!!!

 

The best loved Pride and Prejudice adaptation, the BBC serial, is called "daring and revisionist". That doesn't sound like it is a straight adaptation from the book

[Meera of Tarth]

6 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

The best loved Pride and Prejudice adaptation, the BBC serial, is called "daring and revisionist". That doesn't sound like it is a straight adaptation from the books

So that's your response considering everything I analysed?

what about that? m(from your link!)

Quote

until 2005, The Times considered the 1995 television adaptation "so dominant, so universally adored, [that] it has lingered in the public consciousness as a cinematic standard."^[105] Wright's film consequently met with some initial scepticism from fans, especially in relation to plot changes and casting choices.^[106] Comparing six major adaptations ofPride and Prejudice in 2005, The Daily Mirror gave the only top marks of 9 out of 10 to the 1995 serial and the 2005 film

I can't believe we are speaking of the same article.

the overall opinion of the article is that Pride and Prejudice is a good adaptation, and that the the first ones were very good ones. I can speak only for the last one, but I'm sure the previous are extraordinary.

I'm sad you couldn't enjoy the BBC serial, I suppose when coming to classics it's very difficult to enjoy something that is only probably 95% faithful instead of 100%. However, I see you have changed your mind since the time PandP aired because now you can enjoy something very different to the original source, such as GOT, and I am sure now, considering this, would make you enjoy the BBC or even the last version of PandP at 100%.

[HairGrowsBack]

4 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

The best loved Pride and Prejudice adaptation, the BBC serial, is called "daring and revisionist". That doesn't sound like it is a straight adaptation from the book

Somehow I doubt it has the characters being the complete opposite of what they are in the books, or have the themes explored be completely different/ nonexistant.

[good girl]

4 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

So that's your response considering everything I analysed?

what about that? m(from your link!)

I can't believe we are speaking of the same article.

the overall opinion of the article is that Pride and Prejudice is a good adaptation, and that the the first ones were very good ones. I can speak only for the last one, but I'm sure the previous are extraordinary.

I'm sad you couldn't enjoy the BBC serial, I suppose when coming to classics it's very difficult to enjoy something that is only probably 95% faithful instead of 100%. However, I see you have changed your mind since the time PandP aired because now you can enjoy something very different to the original source, such as GOT, and I am sure now, considering this, would make you enjoy the BBC or even the last version of PandP at 100%.

 

Sorry we aren't talking about good or bad adaptations. We are talking about faithful adaptations where the book was committed to screen with only minimal changes in plot and character. It is clear that this is a very hard standard to achieve and even the most beloved adaptations, like the BBC's Pride and Prejudice are loved despite being daring and revisionist compared to the original text.

[Chebyshov]

I'm not sure what sort of quaaludes that reviewer had ingested, but the 1995 BBC adaptation of P&P is almost a straight, dramatic reading of the text.

I'd say that GoT goes out of its way to give us the complete opposite thematic meaning of ASOIAF, but that's crediting D&D with too much understanding in the first place, tbh. 

[Meera of Tarth]

11 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

 

Sorry we aren't talking about good or bad adaptations. We are talking about faithful adaptations where the book was committed to screen with only minimal changes in plot and character. It is clear that this is a very hard standard to achieve and even the most beloved adaptations, like the BBC's Pride and Prejudice are loved despite being daring and revisionist compared to the original text.

Sorry too, but I was not talking to you about adaptations. I was talking about character adaptations, and then I don't know how, the topic changed to 100% faithful adaptations in general, which is something that any medium has done or will ever do for obvious reasons, as you point out.

Anyway, you can't put the example of the character adaptations of Pride and Prejudice or any other Austen novel of not being well-adapted and at the same time defend the character adaptations of some characters in GOT; because both things are mutually exclusive and weaken your point of view instead of strengthening it.

If you think that there have been minimal changes in the character of Pride and Prejudice but I give you the same link saying that Keira's performance was extraordinary, and I think almost evryone will agree that the characters respect the essence of the novel, and also the review says that the script writter tried to defend the nature of the book......

then you can't defend that the changes in character of GOT are minimal as well and that they tried to put the same effort on doinf the adaptation of them.

And yes, GOT is supposed to be an adaptation. I'm aware they are doing fan fiction now, but that doesn't mean changinf 180 degress the character personality (example of Jaime). If they are doing that it's because

1. is bad writing
2. Jaime will die soon and they prefer he dies as a comedic relief =Cersei's bitch.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Sorry too, but I was not talking to you about adaptations. I was talking about character adaptations, and then I don't know how, the topic changed to 100% faithful adaptations in general, which is something that any medium has done or will ever do for obvious reasons, as you point out.

Anyway, you can't put the example of the character adaptations of Pride and Prejudice or any other Austen novel of not being well-adapted and at the same time defend the character adaptations of some characters in GOT; because both things are mutually exclusive and weaken your point of view instead of strengthening it.

If you think that there have been minimal changes in the character of Pride and Prejudice but I give you the same link saying that Keira's performance was extraordinary, and I think almost evryone will agree that the characters respect the essence of the novel, and also the review says that the script writter tried to defend the nature of the book......

then you can't defend that the changes in character of GOT are minimal as well and that they tried to put the same effort on doinf the adaptation of them.

And yes, GOT is supposed to be an adaptation. I'm aware they are doing fan fiction now, but that doesn't mean changinf 180 degress the character personality (example of Jaime). If they are doing that it's because

1. is bad writing
2. Jaime will die soon and they prefer he dies as a comedic relief =Cersei's bitch.

Have to pick up on a few points as I think this topic is going off in a strange direction.

1) I don;t believe the closeness to the source material has any relevance to whether a tv show is good or bad. I cite Walking Dead constantly as an example of a TV which is usually better the further away from the comic it gets , because it is given more freedom to work within the format. Citing changes to a character from the book as a bad thing per se is basically irrelevant if the character works within the confines of the show.

2) The use of 'Fan Fiction' is an ignorant term used to belittle the show, and shows a gross misunderstanding of the large scale changes to the source material necessary to even get it to work on tv. If you cannot accept that certain plotlines and events needed to be cut due to restrictions of the show then you show a blatant disregard for the difficulties in adaptation.

3) Its debatable that Jamie has done a 180 or his character has totally changed. His actions and character are quite consistent within the writing of the show itself. Would I prefer he wasn't so comedic in the last episode? Yes I would. But there is no reason he wouldn't be acting in the way he does this and last season. There seems to be a desire from certain segments of the book readers to see characters to be on obvious development arcs, where they used to act one way and now act another. I see them constantly assume Sansa must be entirely different because she walked down some stairs in a black dress for instance. Unfortunately humans do not act like that, the concept of the smooth character arc is a pure hollywood invention. 

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, bad pussy said:

 

Sorry we aren't talking about good or bad adaptations. We are talking about faithful adaptations where the book was committed to screen with only minimal changes in plot and character. It is clear that this is a very hard standard to achieve and even the most beloved adaptations, like the BBC's Pride and Prejudice are loved despite being daring and revisionist compared to the original text.

I think maybe you are taking the word "faithful" a bit too literally here. No one expects a a faithful adaptation to be a word-for-word transferring of text into a different medium. A faithful adaptation should be faithful to the themes, to the story, the characters, etc.