Can you even adapt GOT after Storm of Swords??

[Stashee]

So, I think most people would agree that although aspects of the TV show were really well received by George RR Martin, in the books the characters, and especially the storytelling once we get to 'Feast for Crows', are quite different. Like, I would go as far to say that Brienne's part in that book would never be adapted by HBO. It is just so alien to the political intrigue of seasons 1-4 that basically is why the TV show is popular. (Don't get me wrong - I love every page of Brienne's story.)

So I think this is an interesting question: even if the TV writers had had a completed book series to adapt, would it have been even possible for them to do so? They get a lot of criticism for being unfaithful to the books, but, I mean, "Feast for Crows" onwards the books are so dense and literary it would be like trying to adapt JRR Tolkein's the Simarillion.

[Tears of Lys]

Welcome to the Board!  

Don't be surprised if your post doesn't get much response or is closed.  Discussions of the show/books aren't put in the General Chat section.  They're generally found up in the section above.  General Chat is reserved for discussions about anything else but the books/show, etc.

Enjoy the Board!  Hope you'll come to love it as we all do.

[BlackLightning]

On 5/8/2020 at 5:25 PM, Stashee said:

So, I think most people would agree that although aspects of the TV show were really well received by George RR Martin, in the books the characters, and especially the storytelling once we get to 'Feast for Crows', are quite different. Like, I would go as far to say that Brienne's part in that book would never be adapted by HBO. It is just so alien to the political intrigue of seasons 1-4 that basically is why the TV show is popular. (Don't get me wrong - I love every page of Brienne's story.)

So I think this is an interesting question: even if the TV writers had had a completed book series to adapt, would it have been even possible for them to do so? They get a lot of criticism for being unfaithful to the books, but, I mean, "Feast for Crows" onwards the books are so dense and literary it would be like trying to adapt JRR Tolkein's the Simarillion.

Absolutely.

You can absolutely make a good adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire after A Storm of Swords.

The problem with D&D had was that they didn't like A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons. Not only do I not believe that they actually read books 4 and 5, I also suspect that they really stopped paying attention after the Red Wedding which happens 2/3rds of the way through A Storm of Swords.

The fact that Brienne's part in A Feast for Crows wasn't adapted is what ruined a bunch of storylines and crucial character development moments.

[divica]

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Absolutely.

You can absolutely make a good adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire after A Storm of Swords.

The problem with D&D had was that they didn't like A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons. Not only do I not believe that they actually read books 4 and 5, I also suspect that they really stopped paying attention after the Red Wedding which happens 2/3rds of the way through A Storm of Swords.

The fact that Brienne's part in A Feast for Crows wasn't adapted is what ruined a bunch of storylines and crucial character development moments.

I think if you want to adapt asoiaf after the third book then you have to make your own version of the story after book 5.

If we are honest, even if grrm has some ideas how he wants the story to go he has no idea how the story will actually be written. And book 4 and 5 are mostly settign the pieces for what comes after. Whitout knowing what comes after how do you adpt them?

 

The problem with D&D isn t that they didn t know enough of the story of that they made their own story. Their problem is that they are awful writters. If you contacted 90% of the people that write fanfictions about GOT they would have done a much better series. Not because they know more about the books but because they write coeherent stories that actually respect the characters.

[BlackLightning]

5 minutes ago, divica said:

I think if you want to adapt asoiaf after the third book then you have to make your own version of the story after book 5..

True.

But if you fully adapt book 4 and 5 -- notice how I said fully and not faithfully; faithfully adapting book 5 doesn't matter but fully adapting book 5 does matter -- all you have to write is the endgame.

Take the Marvel Cinematic Universe for example. Imagine that the movies Infinity War and Endgame had not been made. But all the other movies already made, Thanos has already been established/introduced and the Infinity Stones have actually become important. All you have to do is write the story of the full power of the Infinity Stones, how Thanos gets all the Infinity Stones, what Thanos does with said the Infinity Stones, how the heroes feel about Thanos and how the heroes manage to beat Thanos despite the fact that he owns all the Infinity Stones.

That's it!

If the beginning and the middle of the story has already been written, if the end of the story has been foreshadowed REPEATEDLY and there's even some sort of list with obscure bullet-points concerned about the beats, all you have to do is draw a solid line between point A and point B. It's not hard. Anyone can do it!

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

You would have to start from the beginning and mix things up a bit. For instance the content of books 4 & 5 would have to be put in order to make sense to the viewer.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 5/8/2020 at 11:25 PM, Stashee said:

So, I think most people would agree that although aspects of the TV show were really well received by George RR Martin, in the books the characters, and especially the storytelling once we get to 'Feast for Crows', are quite different. Like, I would go as far to say that Brienne's part in that book would never be adapted by HBO. It is just so alien to the political intrigue of seasons 1-4 that basically is why the TV show is popular. (Don't get me wrong - I love every page of Brienne's story.

"Political intrigue" was part of it, not the totality - and Brienne doesn't take up the entirety of 4-5 either, it's just one storyline out of many, of which most continue having political intrigue lol. 

 

Brienne's seems more in the ballpark of Hound&Arya which wasn't exactly unpopular either, so don't see how that'd be a problem?

[BlackLightning]

18 hours ago, Winds of Winter blow cold said:

You would have to start from the beginning and mix things up a bit. For instance the content of books 4 & 5 would have to be put in order to make sense to the viewer.

What do you mean by "start from the beginning"?

8 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

"Political intrigue" was part of it, not the totality - and Brienne doesn't take up the entirety of 4-5 either, it's just one storyline out of many, of which most continue having political intrigue lol. 

Brienne's seems more in the ballpark of Hound&Arya which wasn't exactly unpopular either, so don't see how that'd be a problem?

Thank you. I don't see how adapting A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons over the course of two seasons would be difficult on account of it being boring.

Most of the big events that happened in the show happened in either the 9th or 10th episode. The episodes 1, 2, 9 and 10 were the most jam-packed, blockbuster episodes for most of the show. That means that most of the season was spent on the more "boring" stuff. The show was still popular so....

And you can always write original material to make sure timelines even out

[Darryk]

You can, it would just be a slower phase in the series, but that's fine, other great TV shows had slower phases but still maintained their quality and fanbase.

Having book 4 and 5 take place chronologically rather than be divided by character would already improve them significantly, GRRM's biggest mistake was dividing it up according to character and thus having the three main characters, Jon, Dany and Tyrion, not even show up in book 4.

[Lord Lannister]

Being Martin hasn't finished the novels, the answer would seem to be no. That's part of while the show floundered in the last few seasons. They ran out of source material. You can blame D&D all you want for poor writing, but the inescapable fact is Martin sold them an incomplete product.

[Ghostlydragon]

2 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Being Martin hasn't finished the novels, the answer would seem to be no. That's part of while the show floundered in the last few seasons. They ran out of source material. You can blame D&D all you want for poor writing, but the inescapable fact is Martin sold them an incomplete product.

He simply should never have agreed to it until at least Winds was out. Based on the time it took him to write books 4 and 5, he must have known it would take as long to write more, or longer since the plan was for him to be very involvèd in the show for years.

[Samsaptakas]

Brienne should never had that many chapters in the book 4 in the first place. Her story is boring. Not adapting book story of Brienne was right decision.

[BlackLightning]

On 6/30/2020 at 10:19 PM, Samsaptakas said:

Brienne should never had that many chapters in the book 4 in the first place. Her story is boring. Not adapting book story of Brienne was right decision.

I disagree. Not so much about the boring thing (there are boring parts that needed to be cut or truncated) but not adapting the book story of Brienne was a bad idea.

For one, Brienne was a main character but hardly ever changed or faced any real difficulties or setbacks on her own terms as a main character. When you adapt her story in book 4, she does.

[Angel Eyes]

On 6/30/2020 at 4:40 PM, Lord Lannister said:

Being Martin hasn't finished the novels, the answer would seem to be no. That's part of while the show floundered in the last few seasons. They ran out of source material. You can blame D&D all you want for poor writing, but the inescapable fact is Martin sold them an incomplete product.

You can make something out of an incomplete product; only four of the seven Harry Potter books were published when the first film came out and when David Heyman (the producer of the Harry Potter films) was made aware of the books, maybe three were published. Though J.K. Rowling probably had a set template for how she wanted things to go and creative control; she was pretty smart about that.

[Lord Lannister]

15 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

You can make something out of an incomplete product; only four of the seven Harry Potter books were published when the first film came out and when David Heyman (the producer of the Harry Potter films) was made aware of the books, maybe three were published. Though J.K. Rowling probably had a set template for how she wanted things to go and creative control; she was pretty smart about that.

Maybe that's the example Martin had in mind when he first signed off. Perhaps Martin had every intention of having Winds and Dream beating out the show before their respective seasons aired but certainly isn't how it worked out and that's not D&D's fault.

[BlackLightning]

On 2/9/2021 at 9:19 PM, Angel Eyes said:

You can make something out of an incomplete product; only four of the seven Harry Potter books were published when the first film came out and when David Heyman (the producer of the Harry Potter films) was made aware of the books, maybe three were published. Though J.K. Rowling probably had a set template for how she wanted things to go and creative control; she was pretty smart about that.

JK Rowling also gave the producers, directors and writers information about the plot-points, character arcs and mood in the final books. She also how sets and structures should look. She even told Alan Rickman about the fate and motives of Severus Snape so he could properly portray the character...things that which weren't revealed until final chapters of the last book.

The key here is that when JK Rowling spoke, everyone listened.

The most classic example is this: around the time the fifth Harry Potter movie was being made, the producers were trying to make some cuts (the fifth book is very long...good but long) and this was before the days of splitting a movie in half and calling it Part One and Part Two. So, they decided to cut out Kreacher. JK Rowling told them that it was a bad idea because of how important Kreacher was in the sixth and especially the seventh book. They listened and it worked out. A similar situation arose with GRRM and D&D. He told them that cutting out Lady Stoneheart (as well as fAegon, the other Martells, Victarion, Sansa's Vale story and fArya but particularly Lady Stoneheart) was disastrous because she was too important and too closely tied to too many different plots. They didn't listen and that was when the show began to self-destruct.

Cutting out Kreacher would've meant that the producers would have had to pull some ludicrous ideas out of their ass in order to shed light on the RAB mystery as well as the near-indestructibility and corrupting power of the Horcruxes. Either that or they would've had to skip over it completely, creating a massive plot hole.

Removing Lady Stoneheart story caused so many problems, I can't begin to go into them here.

On 2/10/2021 at 1:04 PM, Lord Lannister said:

Maybe that's the example Martin had in mind when he first signed off. Perhaps Martin had every intention of having Winds and Dream beating out the show before their respective seasons aired but certainly isn't how it worked out and that's not D&D's fault.

Don't excuse D&D. There's no excuse.

If the beginning and the middle have been already written, all there is to do is create an ending based off of the beginning and the middle.

D&D did not do that.

When GRRM tells them "don't do that because ____" and they either do it anyway or do something even worse, then that's on them when it blows up in their faces.

When GRRM says "you need to focus on this" and they ignore him with claims that "themes are for 8th grade book reports" and "magic isn't important," then when the story begins to collapse under its own weight it's on them.

For example.

Why is Bran the only skinchanger when it is clearly stated and shown multiple times that all of the Stark children are skinchangers?

Jon and Arya skinchange frequently with Arya being the most second-powerful Stark skinchanger after Bran. Rickon and Robb are heavily implied to be active, willful skinchangers on several different occasions. And GRRM has explicitly said that Sansa is also a skinchanger and that we'll see her get in on the action in the later books.

And what happened to Dany. She is immune to fire, smoke and heat. Okay, cool addition...but they forget that Dany has magical visions and dreams which is central to her character.

[Lord Varys]

The way to properly adapt ASoIaF after ASoS would have been to broaden the scope earlier - use the Tyrells and the Ironborn and the Dornish earlier than they show up in the books. Have Balon's death onscreen in one of the ASoS seasons, and the Kingsmoot, too. Show how Myrcella and Oakheart arrive in Sunspear and first meet Arianne, Doran, and Oberyn. Properly foreshadow the Aegon plot by having another scene with Varys and Illyrio, etc.

Also, the story doesn't broaden all that much. A lot of main characters actually die in the first three books.

[Mithras]

Lady Stoneheart is bad writing. Especially coming from a writer who insists that Gandalf should have stayed dead. Also GRRM proved that he can't be trusted on what is essential and what is filler.

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, Mithras said:

Lady Stoneheart is bad writing. Especially coming from a writer who insists that Gandalf should have stayed dead.

He has stated in interviews what he meant, which I believe you well know, but to say it again, if the alternative to Gandalf staying dead was his coming back more powerful than before, it was better that he stayed dead, in GRRM's mind. If the alternative to Catelyn staying dead is her coming back a monster bent on revenge, then that's a pretty good story, in his mind. And an integral one to his vision, apparently, given that its exclusion is repeatedly cited as a big regret he has regarding GoT, more so than, say, Aegon.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

He has stated in interviews what he meant, which I believe you well know, but to say it again, if the alternative to Gandalf staying dead was his coming back more powerful than before, it was better that he stayed dead, in GRRM's mind. If the alternative to Catelyn staying dead is her coming back a monster bent on revenge, then that's a pretty good story, in his mind. And an integral one to his vision, apparently, given that its exclusion is repeatedly cited as a big regret he has regarding GoT, more so than, say, Aegon.

It is not just Gandalf coming back more powerful than before but also Gandalf being the kind of mentor/father figure that should die and stay that for the other characters to grow - like pretty much every reader of Tolkien George felt the loss of Gandalf pretty heavily during his first reader. It undermines the growth of the other characters that Gandalf came back. This is the reason why the likes of Ned and Aemon and Jeor are *never* going to come back in ASoIaF.

The other point is that Gandalf's resurrection came at basically no cost. Death did not only make him more powerful but was something that doesn't even appear as a big issue for him, personally. It is just a story he tells the gang, and then it is rarely touched upon ever again.

George resurrections so far are hideous experiences, things that do not turn characters into super people but reduce their humanity and turn them, to a point, into caricatures of the people they have been while alive.

And that is consistent not just with Beric and Catelyn but also Coldhands, Gregor Clegane (whatever the fellow is now is definitely less Gregor Clegane and more monster), even the wights - the zombies creatures they become are caricatures of living people. And perhaps the Others also sort of fit that bill if they were once human children.

Even Melisandre sort of could fit into that category if she was resurrected once (which isn't confirmed so far) - whatever magical powers she acquired by being imbued with fire cost her crucial parts of humanity.

And for what it's worth - those resurrections are mirroring the general descent of Westerosi culture into a lawless, brutal, savage place (which we also see with Arya's story, the Red Wedding, the Frey pies, Ramsay's behavior, etc.) on a metaphysical level. Gods and magic do not come down from the heavens to save people - like the Brotherhood without Banners originally thought - but they come to be as brutal and merciless as the living have already become ... or perhaps even worse.