Antacid Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 There's the aforementioned Carnivale. A better example might be McNulty in The Wire; arguably the main character who was barely there last season. HBO does often make you wait several episodes before some sort of resolution; maybe I'm just more tolerant of this. Generally isn't that purely for character development? I can think of circumstances where a recurring characer might be checked in on for one scene, but in those cases they rarely have any effect on the plot of the episode as a whole, and it's never how a new characters is introduced... I think. Minor point, but I'd cut the scene as he's falling, not right after he hits. And I can think of plenty of shows that end episodes on some sort of violent action, notably Rome, 24 & Deadwood. I'll admit, I'm partial to those endings (though 24 takes it too far, and it's more suprising when there's no twist at the end). I'm noticing that your comparisons are movies, and not TV shows. This is a very good point - but I think what you're talking about is a clever structural trick. Generally in shows like that, there will be some main set of problems the characters have which will be partly solved during the episode, providing a resolution. Then, after the episode resolution, a cliffhanger situation will suddenly show itself - but in reality it's not the end of that episode; it's the beginning of the next. That kind of cliffhanger is invariably shown again at the very start of the next episode in the "Previously on..." bit and allows it to start at full speed. But there has to be enough drama for the cliffhanging-episode to work with or without the device for it to be acceptable IMHO. So ending with Bran's fall, you still have the problem that little has happened in the episode. Anyway, after Catelyn survives the assassination attempt on Bran ( Yob) there is a kind of cliffhanger. It's "Will Catelyn reach KL in time to warn her husband about the Lannisters?" Back to Bran's assassin, how would you show it? What would the last scene be? The last bit of dialogue? A version of the dream in Bran III where he sees shots of everyone going in different directions - his mum on a ship and his father on the Kingsroad, and Jon heading north, i.e. the seperation of his family - from his coma via clairvoyance. Then via the miracle of special FX he looks north as on page 163 of the book, zooming rapidly over the forests past the wall to the far north and seeing a pair of huge blue Other eyes staring back at him, thereby linking the end of the episode to the prologue at the beginning and defining the main threat of the whole series in a single shot. THE END. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Ep. V: Mysteries and Interlude Daenerys III Opening Title Eddard V Eddard VI Sansa II Eddard VII Bran IV Here, we open with Daenerys settling into her journey, and beginning her transformation into a Khaleesi. She rides, she challenges her brother for the first time, and realizes that she is pregnant. After the opening titles, we return to King's Landing, as Eddard begins to piece together the mystery involving Jon Arryn's death. He investigates books, talks to people, meets Gendry, and begins to get a feel for what happened. This takes place during preparations for the tourney, which we watch from Sansa's PoV. Moreover, we see Gregor kill young Ser Hugh, the squire of Jon Arryn's that Eddard wanted to speak to. Eddard watches the end of the tourney, and is told by Varys that Jon was killed for asking too many questions. We close with Bran meeting Tyrion up north, and being told that he might ride a horse once again. This episode is the calm before the storm: between the pain of the journey south, and the chaos that erupts later... as an interlude, it focuses on the mystery of Jon's death/murder as a plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Antacid - I like your linkage of the blue eyes from the prologue to Bran's dream... How about this (assuming, for the time being, a double-length premiere)? Instead of showing the assassination attempt in chronological order, shift it back, the way I did in my Ep.4. This clears a bit more space to have Bran's dream close out the long first episode... Ep. 1: Prologue - Will and the Wights Opening Title Bran I - Beheading and Direwolves Catelyn I - Letters at the Hearttree Eddard I - King's arrival and the crypts Catelyn II - Decision to accept and children divisions Jon I - King's Feast and Jon with Benjen and Tyrion Arya I - Sewing and swordplay Bran II - Climbing and falling Tyrion I - Interesting stories Jon II - Goodbyes Bran III - Dreams and awakenings Then Ep.2 would show journeys, and so on... Bran III doesn't show Catelyn there, and her absence is hinted at in his dream... more importantly, Catelyn's presence or absence is irrelevant to the scene. It's not important to Bran's PoV... only to Catelyn's. That said, I kind of doubt that a series premiere will open with a double-length episode. While I've seen double-length *season* premiers, it's only been for well-established and popular series. I've never seen a brand-new, untested series given an extra time-slot... and I doubt it'll happen here. That said, I'm not that familiar with HBO's programming practices, so anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Episode VI : The wheels come off Arya II/III - Syrio's first lesson fades to Arya catching cats and overhearing threats. Her warnings fall on deaf ears, and Fat Tom guarantees Ned's safety. Opening Title Catelyn V - A simple tavern stop results in Tyrion's capture Eddard VIII - A fight with the King over Daenerys' murder Tyrion IV - The High Road Eddard IX - Conflict with Jaime Lannister Eddard X - ToJ Take 2, Return to the hand, and a promise of a hunt Catelyn VI - Arrival at the Vale This episode focuses on Tyrion's capture and the after-effects... with hints of even greater dangers to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still not king Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I'm very late with this comment, but...about the Mycah/Hound scene: Oh, and call me insane. Eddard's reaction to the body should be enough. Insane. Imagine it: the Hound comes riding and meets Mycah. For a while they just stare at each other, then Mycah turns and runs for his life. The Hound turns his horse, waits for the boy to get some distance between them - because it's all about the hunt, right? - and then goes after him. Maybe seen from the front, the boy's POV, and then cutting the scene just as the Hound reaches him? (That way you get to keep some uncertainty on whether or not Mycah was actually killed or just captured, leaves for a bigger emotional impact when Ned meets them later.) A chilling scene if I ever saw one. And more importantly, this scene will be mirrored when he comes after Arya at the Red Wedding. The viewers will freak out! OMG, Arya is about to get murdered! Just IMO. Now I'll quietly back out and keep my mouth shut. Keep on the good work, people - this is interesting reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nothing to add. Just impressed with Maester Yobjascz's breakdown of the book into episodes. Very exciting to think we'll be seeing a version of these in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Episode VII - Champions Bran V - Bran is rescued by Robb and Theon from the wildlings Opening Title Tyrion V - Tyrion stands trial in the Vale and chooses Bronn as his champion Jon IV - Samwell Tarly arrives at the Wall, and is aided by Jon Catelyn VI - Bronn wins Tyrion's freedom against the Vale Jon V - Jon is promoted and asks for Samwell to be as well Daenerys IV - Arrival at Vaes Dothrak, Dany hits Viserys Daenerys V - The stallion heart and Viserys' crown Jon VI - Jon and Sam take their oaths; Ghost finds a hand This seems like a long episode, but several of the chapters are rather short... so it should work out. ETA - Daenerys IV and V are pretty darned short. As is Tyrion V and Catelyn VII. The combat takes most of the sequence, and is over fairly quickly. Jon V is *very* short. I think they'll all fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scabbard Of the Morning Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Personally I think the whole wildling scene should be cut, you will not fit it into this episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Episode VIII - The storm hits Eddard XI - Sending Beric after Gregor Sansa III - Not like that old drunk king Opening Title Eddard XII - Offer of Exile to Cersei, Game of Thrones Eddard XIII - Robert's Return; Plots & Plans Eddard XIV - Treachery; Cersei takes control Arya IV - Escape from the Red Keep Sansa IV - Confiding the truth to Jeyne Poole The turning point of the first season... the difficulty here is with Sansa IV. Her chapter is a series of flashbacks... Perhaps we see Sansa talking to the Queen, followed by her return to her room... and then we see fighting out the window. The cues will have to show that this takes place, chronologically, before Eddard XIV. Closing with Sansa's mistake will be harrowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Episode IX - The War Begins Jon VII - Wights in Castle Black Opening Title Tyrion VI - Making friends with the Mountain Clans Bran VI - Robb calls his banners and takes command Tyrion VII - Tyrion joins with Tywin and prepares for battle Daenerys VI - Drogo agrees to conquer Westeros Jon VIII - Maester Aemon and the pain of choices The pace ramps up as lords call their banners and prepare for war. Tyrion and Tywin meet up and prepare for battle. Robb bends his lords to his will, and begins his march south. Daenerys convinces Drogo to go to war against Westeros. We conclude with one of the most powerful scenes in the series: Aemon's decisions *not* to partake in conflicts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Episode X : The Young Wolf Sansa V - Sansa begs for Eddards' life Opening Titles Catelyn VIII - The Young Wolf's Battle Plans (omitting the force split) Tyrion VIII - Battle of the Green Fork - No Young Wolf? Catelyn IX - Haggling with the Freys Catelyn X - The Whispering Wood Catelyn XI - King in the North The north wraps up with a climactic victory and a declaration of independence. Opening with Sansa draws a strong contrast between her actions and what 'true' Starks, like Robb, do. Skipping the details of Robb's force split keeps the results of the Battle of the Green Fork a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tysha Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Are there actually any two people in this thread who agree with each other on every point? Because this has got to be the most goddamn frustrating thread I have ever participated in! First off, Maester Y – as the apparent Anti-You I suppose it goes without saying that I don’t think your episode breakdowns will fill an hour of television. Moreover, Antacid is absolutely right that an episode which is all about Ned deciding whether or not to be Hand is going to be boring. Antacid – Hmmm, okay. I’m going to ignore the way you haven’t answered my criticisms of Excalibur’s montage here and here and answer as if you had. How about you try scrolling down three posts each time and you will see my responses. Here, I’ll copy and paste them in case you missed them: I think that’s a slightly erroneous argument because at the opening of any TV show or any movie the uninitiated audience member doesn’t have the foggiest who anyone is. I think it would be fairly obvious in Excalibur’s montage who we were supposed to be rooting for. If you’ve got the Kingsuard there, all in their uniforms, glowering, blocking the way of the nice looking man and his nice looking companions, I think the immediate sympathy will fall to the nice looking man. And when the Kingsguard say “Woe to the usurper†and it is followed shots of the current king looking mad and burning people alive, the audience will easily work out that actually the ‘usurper’ is doing the sensible thing. I think the montage actually succeeds extremely well at not being confusing and at giving the audience enough information to work it all out for themselves. Ned says, “I looked for you on the Trident†and immediately after we see shots of “quick snippets of the sky view from the trident and the surrounding lands, followed up by some fighting and then the scene switches back to the tower.†I think you’d have to be pretty dense not to work out that that quick flash was what they were just referring to. I think the dialogue as Excalibur wrote it is excellent. It lets us know there’s been a war, it lets us know the king is dead, slain by one of his own, it lets us know a couple of members of the royal family have escaped, and it lets us know who the kingsguard are and what they do. And if the prologue cuts straight to present-day Ned with his eyes closed in remembrance, grey shot through his beard, the harsh light of day highlighting whatever wrinkles he has, we will know that a fair amount of time has passed since the events we just saw but that they still haunt the nice looking man whose name we will shortly discover is Eddard. And… Probably, but as this is a fantasy adaptation we can pretend we have billions of dollars to play with! Or, to be a little less flippant, the ToJ will have to be filmed for Ned’s dream, so why not kill two birds with one stone and do the whole lot at the same time? Ditto a great deal of scenes that would be shown in the prologue. There are a lot of places throughout the series, not just the first season, where flashbacks will be necessary, so they’ll have to be filmed anyway. Different edits can be used in different instances but the footage will have to be there. And you should visit the casting thread – we’ve talked about the possibility of using different actors but have instead ‘cast’ actors who could easily look younger with a bit of gentle lighting! As for why the exposition needs to be there early on … as I said, the audience need to know before they meet Robert how he came to be king. In the book that information is given to us on page 25 and it leads in to Cat and Ned talking about Robert’s visit. You say this information could be conveyed via dialogue. How? Ned: Oh, Cat, Jon was like a father to me after he fostered Robert and me at the Eyrie. And when he raised his banner in revolt against Aerys rather than give us up when Aerys called for our heads… Cat: Um, Ned? Hi! Remember me? Your wife? We’ve been married for fourteen years, I know all this already! Expository dialogue between two characters who should already know what is being explained is crap and should be avoided at all costs. Moving on … How about if you changed it round so Eddard got the letter instead of Catelyn. Catelyn can ask him why he’s subdued, then Eddard can tell her Jon is dead and he’s had word the king is coming. Catelyn knows less about Jon than Eddard, so the details can come naturally as him explaining why he’s upset. Right? How would that help explain the rebellion? I said just a few posts ago than Jon’s relationship to Ned and Robert can come out when they’re down in the crypts together. All we need to know at this point is that a guy named Jon Arryn who meant something to Ned has died and the king is on his way. This info will be conveyed just as well whether it’s Ned or Cat who gets the letter. That’s not the issue, the issue is expositing the fact that Robert won his throne through war. Or are you suggesting Ned can talk about that at this point? Because that again leaves us with the problem of having expository dialogue between two characters who already know everything. I don’t know, and neither do you. It’s very difficult to be precise without writing the bastard. Don’t tempt me … Who? You mean the two figures glimpsed fleetingly in one shot? Oh, them! Wow, yes, my emotions were heavily invested in them. Did I say anything whatsoever about emotional attachment? No. But whether we have a title card telling of the fall of House Targaryen or we show it in the montage, unless we have some kind of follow-up about what the surviving Targaryens are getting up to – indeed, unless we show that there are surviving Targaryens – no-one in the audience will take any notice of them and will not realise that they are actually going to be part of the story. Explain why it’s necessary for the first episode if the surviving Targs can be mentioned in dialogue, and specifically why it will damage the series to delay Dany’s physical entrance to the episode 2. What’s that story about the pot, the kettle and the colour black? I have already explained many times why I believe it is necessary for Dany to be in the first episode. But to reiterate: First, I think we need to meet Dany in her own right before Robert starts talking about her and how to kill her. I just think it would be a hell of a lot better if instead of Dany’s first appearance being accompanied by the audience thinking, “Oooh, that’s the Targaryen girl they’re going to kill!â€, Robert’s first mention of her is instead accompanied by thoughts along the lines of “Noooo! You can’t hurt Dany, she’s so sweet!†Second, if the first episode is all about the Starks and the Lannisters and we leave them hanging over a precipice and then follow that up in the next episode by having the bulk it being about this new, unfamiliar character, I don’t know about anyone else but I would be sitting there thinking, “The hell? Who is this kid? I don’t want her, I want the Starks! Go away!†Third, as I said above, the fall of House Targaryen will need to be at least mentioned in the first episode. That needs to be followed through on by also showing that there are still Targaryens out there and they are going to be significant. Finally, given how far removed from everything else that is going on in Westeros Dany’s storyline is, I think it is vital that she is introduced at the same time as everything else and in relation to it all to avoid it feeling like there are two different shows going on at the same time. And, as the subject of one of the three main plot threads - along with the war and the Others - she deserves to be in the first episode with them instead of being relegated. MJS - The question really goes to how the scenes are arranged. Do you run the scenes in a chronological order and jump from focus char to focus character, with short choppy segments*** or do you run a bunch of scenes about a character together (say 5-10 minutes worth or more) and then jump back in time a little bit to go to a new character somewhere else. This creates an overlapping time line as we have in the book. It’s difficult to give a definite answer to this because each episode will have its own problems and issues and needs and necessities. But generally speaking I think too much jumping around would be hard to keep up with, particularly as the series progresses and the scope gets wider. But I also think we should avoid having a feel of ‘mini-episodes’ within the hour where each segment is over and done with before the next one begins. So for example instead of an episode having fifteen minutes of Tyrion being held captive by Catelyn, followed by fifteen minutes of Jon at the wall, followed by fifteen minutes of all the political machinations at King’s Landing, and then fifteen minutes of Dany, it should have ten minutes of Tyrion, ten minutes of Jon, ten minutes of KL, five minutes of Dany, another ten minutes of Tyrion, another five minutes of Jon and another ten minutes of KL. So basically … I think there should be a balance between the two! I just think it would be so cool for Arya’s scenes to be grittier, a knights surcoat might have travel dust on it, and rust on his chain-mail, where you might see a horse take a crap and that is just part of life, and there are commoners everywhere. In Sansa’s scenes all of the knights are in polished armor and their surcoats are brilliantly clean and there are no commoners except when there needs to be. We would get the feeling that much of the perception of the world is based on the preconceptions that the characters bring to their view of the world. I agree with this to a point. I think each location should have its own look, feel, colours, etc. As generally each location has one character tied to it, the character can influence the look of the place. And perhaps as their perceptions change subtle changes can occur in the look of the location. For instance, the Wall could be constantly looming in the background in Jon’s early time there, then seeming slightly less imposing as he grows in confidence and eventually becomes the Boy Commander. However, I’m not sure how far we can take this if two different characters are in the same place at the same time. For instance, if you have Sansa and Sandor in one scene and Arya and Sandor in the next, and in one Sandor looks shiny and in the other he looks scuffed even though he’s wearing the same armour, I think it would be a case of style over substance. I would prefer that the actresses playing the roles conveyed to the audience how their character saw the world rather than relying on gimmicks like this. Apologies for the tl;dr-ness of this post. A gold star and a plate of cookies to anyone who actually read through it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacid Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Wow, the roof of my skull just caved in! Did you know you can use (url=http****) and (/url) in square brakets to make a link point to a previous post? BTW, I had actually re-read those. I disagree that your answers cancel out my arguments, that's all. P.S. re. this thread being frustrating - I think we're finding out why it takes HBO years to develop a series P.S.S. you're not the only one tempted to write this. Part of the reason I've not just written out passages of script to support my points is that I might have trouble stopping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Jon Snow Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 MJS - It’s difficult to give a definite answer to this because each episode will have its own problems and issues and needs and necessities. But generally speaking I think too much jumping around would be hard to keep up with, particularly as the series progresses and the scope gets wider. But I also think we should avoid having a feel of ‘mini-episodes’ within the hour where each segment is over and done with before the next one begins. So for example instead of an episode having fifteen minutes of Tyrion being held captive by Catelyn, followed by fifteen minutes of Jon at the wall, followed by fifteen minutes of all the political machinations at King’s Landing, and then fifteen minutes of Dany, it should have ten minutes of Tyrion, ten minutes of Jon, ten minutes of KL, five minutes of Dany, another ten minutes of Tyrion, another five minutes of Jon and another ten minutes of KL. So basically … I think there should be a balance between the two! Then we have gotten a lot closer. I would think 10 minutes segments for each character (some shorter, some longer) would be about right. Enough time to get the feel of the character, have some dialogue, have some action, get to a crux moment and then move to the next chr. I agree with this to a point. I think each location should have its own look, feel, colours, etc. As generally each location has one character tied to it, the character can influence the look of the place. And perhaps as their perceptions change subtle changes can occur in the look of the location. For instance, the Wall could be constantly looming in the background in Jon’s early time there, then seeming slightly less imposing as he grows in confidence and eventually becomes the Boy Commander. However, I’m not sure how far we can take this if two different characters are in the same place at the same time. For instance, if you have Sansa and Sandor in one scene and Arya and Sandor in the next, and in one Sandor looks shiny and in the other he looks scuffed even though he’s wearing the same armour, I think it would be a case of style over substance. I would prefer that the actresses playing the roles conveyed to the audience how their character saw the world rather than relying on gimmicks like this. Apologies for the tl;dr-ness of this post. A gold star and a plate of cookies to anyone who actually read through it all! You had a lot of good things to say. Thanks for putting the effort into it. Actually the first few episodes have a lot of opportunity for this. We see Winterfell from 6 different POVs. That would be an awesome time to establish the differences. The Godswood is dark and foreboding to Cat and Sansa, but to Bran & Arya its exciting and wild. To Ned and Jon it is solemn and serene. Same location. Change the lighting, sounds, amount of wind and you have three different Godswoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldis Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I agree with Antacid on the ToJ sequence and I think he nailed the reasoning in this section. THE ROBELLION So, let’s say we were to come up with a more newbie-friendly version of the Robellion, something as awesome as the Lord of the Rings opening sequence. I believe that would still be a mistake. Because the Robellion isn’t actually the main subject of ASOIAF at all – the real enemy, I think everyone can assume, is the Others. Putting the Prologue after an intro sequence will reduce the emphasis that I think GRRM intended by putting the Other’s scene first in the book. In LOTR, the prologue is exclusively about the history of the Ring – which makes perfect sense, because that’s the main focus of the films. But GRRM didn’t call this series “the After-Effects Of Robert’s Rebellion†– so why should we open with a History lesson? In addition the dialogue between Robert and Ned in the crypt explains much of what happened in the past and much better than the ToJ sequence would. You may have to add a characteror two, servants - maybe a squire, to give words to some of the inner dialogue. (Something that will have to happen a lot, the biggest problem adapting from book to film will be transforming thoughts into dialogue) I think there's enough in that scene to give us as much of the background as we need. Really we dont need to know how Robert became King yet. We certainly dont need to know much about the ToJ and Ned trying to rescue Lyanna. We dont need to know of the Kingslaying yet, it'll be wasted material for at least a season. These are all details that can be added later. A question for those who want the sequence what exactly does it add? Why do we need to know all that back story up front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tysha Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Actually the first few episodes have a lot of opportunity for this. We see Winterfell from 6 different POVs. That would be an awesome time to establish the differences. The Godswood is dark and foreboding to Cat and Sansa, but to Bran & Arya its exciting and wild. To Ned and Jon it is solemn and serene. Same location. Change the lighting, sounds, amount of wind and you have three different Godswoods. That would work really well. I think this is something that could really be done with locations because you could take advantage of things like pathetic fallacy. However, I think if the same thing was applied to perception of people it would be far less subtle. And if we take Joffrey as an example - if Sansa always sees him as golden and lovely, and Arya always sees him as slimy and wormy-lipped, it would be far less powerful when Sansa finally sees, after Ned's death, that Joffrey isn't the handsome prince she thought he was. Caldis - I think there's enough in that scene to give us as much of the background as we need. Really we dont need to know how Robert became King yet. We certainly dont need to know much about the ToJ and Ned trying to rescue Lyanna. We dont need to know of the Kingslaying yet, it'll be wasted material for at least a season. These are all details that can be added later. We do need to know how Robert became king because it would give the audience whiplash to discover after they've met him that he became king through war, not because of inheritance. You're right that we don't need to know about Lyanna and the ToJ until Ned's dream sequence, but nothing about Lyanna need be given away in the montage. The use of the ToJ and the conversation between Ned and Dayne is just a framing device to give some form to the prologue. And I think we do need to know about the Kingslaying because it is such a vital part of Jaime's character. He's not just the Queen's arrogant twin brother, he's the Kingslayer and he would be robbed of so much if the audience didn't know that about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arioch Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I think there's enough in that scene to give us as much of the background as we need. Really we dont need to know how Robert became King yet. We certainly dont need to know much about the ToJ and Ned trying to rescue Lyanna. We dont need to know of the Kingslaying yet, it'll be wasted material for at least a season. These are all details that can be added later. A question for those who want the sequence what exactly does it add? Why do we need to know all that back story up front? We get most of it soon enough in a less transcribable format (interior monalogues / flashbacks) in the crypt. The TOJ is remarkably light on dialog, is external, and conveys the heart of the rebellion. Adding Ned leaving with Lyanna's body and a child pretty much sets the stage for the first few chapters, including Dany I in episode I and let's us delay Robert's arrival to episode 2 (preserving chapter order). If done delicately, we can omit certain bits (like names) and add them back when Ned actually has the dream. Having the same actor, for example, play Martyn and Jory Cassel (with just enough makeup to make them father/son) would be cool (the whole theme about going south being death). The TOJ is as short as needed to go before opening credits and establishes background not otherwise revealed until Eddard I (which I put as the beginning of episode 2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share Posted January 23, 2007 Ep. 11 Eddard XV - Ned and his choices Opening Title Arya V - Eddard's Beheading Bran VII - Eddard in the Crypts Sansa VI - Joffrey on the Battlement Jon IX - Going and returning Tyrion IX - On to King's Landing Ep.12 Daenerys VII Daenerys VIII Daenerys IX Daenerys X This clearly won't work out... so I'll need to re-adjust. Also, the Young Wolf episode can't end with King in the North... because that's not a viable option until Ned is killed. So King in the North (Catelyn XI) must follow Arya V... and should likely be the last Stark perspective, after both Arya V and Sansa VI. At some point, I'll do a bit of reorganization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldis Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 We do need to know how Robert became king because it would give the audience whiplash to discover after they've met him that he became king through war, not because of inheritance. Why whiplash? We dont know much about any of these characters yet all we know when we meet him is that Robert is king why should anyone suppose that he inherited the throne? We quickly find out how he became king when he and Ned go down into the crypt to visit Lyanna's grave, this is the first scene where he appears in the story. So either you cut the scene of them together in the crypt or you show the same thing twice in quick succession. I think the scene in the crypt is important for both Robert and Eddard and shows more of their friendship then the quick cuts in Excal's ToJ sequence would. And I think we do need to know about the Kingslaying because it is such a vital part of Jaime's character. He's not just the Queen's arrogant twin brother, he's the Kingslayer and he would be robbed of so much if the audience didn't know that about him. But Jaime Lannister is a minor character for the first book. I think the whispered title of Kingslayer gives him more mystique and the scene of him actually killing mad Aerys is all that much more powerful if we save it until later when the story is focusing on him. It's the same problem I have with all the cuts in the ToJ sequence as proposed they steal thunder from several later scenes where they will have more emotional impact. For those of us who have read the book we get the emotional impact of those scenes because we already know the characters and their significance, for someone new to the story the impact will be greater when they are more attached to the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Yobjascz Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm trying to stay out of the way for the argument here, and just work on episode layouts... I suppose it goes without saying that I don’t think your episode breakdowns will fill an hour of television. Moreover, Antacid is absolutely right that an episode which is all about Ned deciding whether or not to be Hand is going to be boring. However, I will comment on this. First, the episode breakdowns, in general, are dictated by the timing. We've got 73 chapters in AGoT, and we're apparently working on a 12 episode season. 73 divided by 12 yields 6 chapters per episode, with one left over. Thus, if we average 6 chapters per episode, and have one episode with 7, we hit our mark. If some chapters contain more material than others, then we move things around, so that we hit roughly the same time period per episode... I've tried to do that the best I can, but it'll take a bit more fine-tuning. That said, I expect those who are clamoring to go all the way through Bran's fall or the assassination attempt in the first episode to try and map out the rest of the season. If you manage to get past 8 episodes before you finish all the chapters, I'll be impressed. You simply can't pack that much into the first episode, and then expect to maintain that pace all the way through... AGoT isn't that long. ASoS will manage that pace quite easily... but it's got an extra 9 chapters. If my breakdowns don't hit an hour, then the scenes will have to be expanded to make length. Longer shots, added dialogue, whatever. That, or accept a shorter season. As to my first episode being 'boring', you're focusing on Ned's decision as the focal point of the episode... well, that doesn't happen 'till the last scene. The episode is an introduction to the Starks of Winterfell, and Eddard in particular. There's also the wolves, and the symbolism of the wolf and stag. There's the intro to the Old Gods and the ways of the North, the godswood and the heart trees that need explanation. This all takes time, and is part of getting the audience to know and love the Starks. I'm sorry if this doesn't create the fast-paced action drama that you're expecting, but I don't think it's necessary nor proper this early in the series. AGoT ramps up... and much of it relies on our attachment to the various characters. If we're not given time to understand them and their motivations, we won't care what happens to them. ... For whatever reason (I blame lack of sleep), I'm not able to phrase my arguments as I'd like. So I'll hold back from rambling, and hope that some of my comments come across. Otherwise, I'll wait 'till I can make myself more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tysha Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Why whiplash? We dont know much about any of these characters yet all we know when we meet him is that Robert is king why should anyone suppose that he inherited the throne? Because inheritence is the usual way to become king. Usurping the old king and claiming the throne for yourself is unusual and it's very important to the story that it is known as soon as possible. We quickly find out how he became king when he and Ned go down into the crypt to visit Lyanna's grave, this is the first scene where he appears in the story. No we don't. Or if we do, once again we have the worst kind of exposition - dialogue between two characters who already know everything. But Jaime Lannister is a minor character for the first book. I think the whispered title of Kingslayer gives him more mystique and the scene of him actually killing mad Aerys is all that much more powerful if we save it until later when the story is focusing on him. It's the same problem I have with all the cuts in the ToJ sequence as proposed they steal thunder from several later scenes where they will have more emotional impact. For those of us who have read the book we get the emotional impact of those scenes because we already know the characters and their significance, for someone new to the story the impact will be greater when they are more attached to the characters. In your original post you said we didn't need to know of the Kingslaying yet. How can he have the whispered title of Kingslayer if the circumstances of that aren't explained? And I think we may be envisaging the scene differently because in my head the ToJ montage wouldn't actually give anything away. It would convey necessary information and offer enticing little snippets which will be expanded on later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.