Can you even adapt GOT after Storm of Swords??

[Angel Eyes]

57 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.

Gandalf comes back stronger because he’s not human, he runs on a different set of rules.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Gandalf comes back stronger because he’s not human, he runs on a different set of rules.

George isn't questioning the mechanics. He's questioning the narrative role. Gandalf's return makes things easier, not harder, for the protagonists. Seeming to kill him was a big turn and made their challenge so much greater, which is what impressed GRRM as a reader... but then Tolkien eventually brings him back, and more powerful, and it takes away from that challenge. Yes, there's all sort of thematic and metaphysical reasons beyond the narrative that Tolkien was exploring with this, but in the narrative Gandalf coming back was a big old PLUS in the column for the protagonists.

One can assume Stoneheart's narrative role in ASoIaF is the opposite: things will become harder for protagonists because of her role in the story, not easier.

[Lord Lannister]

21 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

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

Yeah, ok. Maybe if you got over your kneejerk reaction to defend George and stopped putting words in my mouth for a moment to bother reading the posts you'd realize I wasn't. Yes, they screwed up and could've done better. But the fact of the matter is George signed off the rights to them so he hears his share of the responsibility for the end product. Every TV adaptation is going to have it's quirks and cuts due to limitations of the medium. Personally I think they did well enough up through season 4 when the source material started running out. So either way you look at it, George sold them an incomplete product regardless of if he intended to finish Winds by the time the appropriate seasons rolled around and just failed or not. D&D definitely should've had an idea of what was(or wasn't in this case) coming and had some sort of plan to make due and they definitely failed as well, especially in seasons 7 and 8. I'm not "excusing" anything. I'm giving Martin his fair share of the blame though. He should've known what D&D were about well before he signed on the line. Or maybe he did and just was paying more attention to the paycheck next to it. Either way it's on him too. 

[Angel Eyes]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

 

Outside of Gandalf not being human and Eru (God) invoking divine intervention, when Tolkien's beings play with immortality it isn't a pretty picture. Beren doesn't come back completely whole, and beings who live beyond their natural lifespan degenerate into wraiths like the Nazgul. There's also the barrow-wights, evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies (slightly different from George's wights which are closer to straight-up zombies (key word is closer)).

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Outside of Gandalf not being human and Eru (God) invoking divine intervention, when Tolkien's beings play with immortality it isn't a pretty picture. Beren doesn't come back completely whole, and beings who live beyond their natural lifespan degenerate into wraiths like the Nazgul. There's also the barrow-wights, evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies (slightly different from George's wights which are closer to straight-up zombies (key word is closer)).

We pretty much all know how the metaphysical mechanics in Middle-earth work there - this isn't the issue. The issue is the narrative role Gandalf's return had in the novel. He just comes back in the book, and while Eru is namedropped once or twice in the appendices, he is never mentioned in the novel proper, nor is Gandalf's return ever explained as a divine intervention in the novel. It just happens, it takes away agency and growth from the other characters, and it appears as if - for Gandalf, at least - death is just something you go through and then you get an upgrade by unseen forces.

It is a literal deus ex machina plot - when in doubt, resurrect you mentor character and give him an upgrade.

That there are other beings for who death or attempts at immortality are a much bigger problem has nothing to do with that.

And to be clear - even Gandalf's nature as an angelic being cannot really be properly drawn from LotR because the text doesn't really properly introduce what the wizards are or what the Lords of West accross the sea are. To know that, you really have to take into account the Silmarillion backstory - something most people (and especially not George, when he read LotR prior to the publication of the Silmarillion) didn't have when they first read LotR. And you also read the appendices only after you are through with the novel, meaning the additional knowledge you gain later doesn't change the effect the narrative had on your first read.

But, to be sure, Beren comes back whole - he and Lúthien do not live all that long after their return, and they do not intermingle with other men or elves, but there is no indication that they are not completely themselves. In fact, assuming they aren't defeats the entire point of their return from the dead - which is supposed to be a very great miracle.

[Ghostlydragon]

Very true. Gandalf dying is a key part of the hero's journey for both Frodo and Aragorn. Frodo loses his father figure much like Luke Skywalker did, and Aragorn is finally placed into a leadership role that for the first time in his life, he cannot run away from.

And I always hated that the promo for the two towers spoiled his return too, especially as I wasn't far from that point in the book.

I agree with a lot of others. Gandalf coming back didn't change much other than making things easier for his friends and allies. 

[SeanF]

Had the two D's employed other writers, then based upon the information that George Martin provided them with, they probably could have produced something that was at least competent.

[Lord Varys]

48 minutes ago, Ghostlydragon said:

Very true. Gandalf dying is a key part of the hero's journey for both Frodo and Aragorn. Frodo loses his father figure much like Luke Skywalker did, and Aragorn is finally placed into a leadership role that for the first time in his life, he cannot run away from.

And I always hated that the promo for the two towers spoiled his return too, especially as I wasn't far from that point in the book.

I agree with a lot of others. Gandalf coming back didn't change much other than making things easier for his friends and allies. 

And if you look at the things Gandalf did after his return then there really was no narrative reason for him to come back. Nothing of the things he did couldn't have done by some of the other heroes. In fact, if the companions had dealt with Saruman the story could have been much more powerful ... and Tolkien kind of establishes this himself when he has Éowyn rather than Gandalf slay the Witch-king on the Pelennor. Gandalf is there but doesn't do the crucial things.

Thus, perhaps, a Star-Wars-like approach - people hearing Gandalf's voice or encountering him as a ghost or vision - may have been better than this weirdo physical resurrection thingy.

If Sauron himself had come from Barad-dûr to one of the battles - Pelennor or Morannon - then, perhaps, it would have been justified to have a resurrected Gandalf there, too. But that never happens. The way things are Gandalf's presence takes away a lot of tension because whenever things get really bad and he is there he just lifts his arm and the light from his fingers chases away the Nazgûl. They really aren't all that much of a match for him ... not if push came to shove.

[BlackLightning]

Yeah. Comparing Gandalf to the resurrections in ASoIAF is like comparing apples to carrots.

They are not at all the same. And one of the massive problems I had with the show was that they treated Jon Snow's resurrection like the resurrection of Gandalf. As a matter of fact, Jon Snow dying and coming back to life was much less impactful than Gandalf because at least Gandalf was gone for awhile. And while Gandalf's resurrection went nowhere, at least more than 3 named characters cared.

On 2/14/2021 at 4:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

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.

What do you mean use the Tyrells and the Ironborn earlier than they show up in the books?

Loras Tyrell is in the first book and serves as a puzzle piece in the "Who killed Jon Arryn and why" mystery. The entire Greyjoy family is introduced and directly talked about in the second book and Theon refers to them almost every time he has dialogue in the first book.

The Tyrells and the Greyjoys are always there.

I do 100% agree with further foreshadowing the Aegon plot, having Myrcella and Oakheart meeting the Martells onscreen or showing the beginning of Arianne and Oakheart's affair. I don't think it's completely necessary but I do think that it would help: especially in the case of Aegon.

 

[BlackLightning]

On 2/14/2021 at 4:04 PM, Angel Eyes said:

There's also the barrow-wights, evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies (slightly different from George's wights which are closer to straight-up zombies (key word is closer)).

True.

But I'm nursing a tinfoil theory that that's what the wights are. They are being skinchanged by either the Others or whatever force is controlling/encouraging the Others.

[BlackLightning]

On 2/14/2021 at 2:57 PM, Lord Lannister said:

Yeah, ok. Maybe if you got over your kneejerk reaction to defend George and stopped putting words in my mouth for a moment to bother reading the posts you'd realize I wasn't. Yes, they screwed up and could've done better. But the fact of the matter is George signed off the rights to them so he hears his share of the responsibility for the end product. Every TV adaptation is going to have it's quirks and cuts due to limitations of the medium. Personally I think they did well enough up through season 4 when the source material started running out. So either way you look at it, George sold them an incomplete product regardless of if he intended to finish Winds by the time the appropriate seasons rolled around and just failed or not. D&D definitely should've had an idea of what was(or wasn't in this case) coming and had some sort of plan to make due and they definitely failed as well, especially in seasons 7 and 8. I'm not "excusing" anything. I'm giving Martin his fair share of the blame though. He should've known what D&D were about well before he signed on the line. Or maybe he did and just was paying more attention to the paycheck next to it. Either way it's on him too. 

Yeah but I feel like the responsibility he bears is minimal. The thing that I fault GRRM with the most is not properly/completely vetting them.

I don't believe that D&D would've accurately adapt the series even if Martin had finished it before allowing it to be adapted.

Their clear disdain for magic and the supernatural and simple thematic elements, their mismanagement of Dorne and Winterfell in season 5 and their comments about "Dany kinda forgot about Iron Fleet" tells me all that I need to know.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Yeah. Comparing Gandalf to the resurrections in ASoIAF is like comparing apples to carrots.

They are not at all the same. And one of the massive problems I had with the show was that they treated Jon Snow's resurrection like the resurrection of Gandalf. As a matter of fact, Jon Snow dying and coming back to life was much less impactful than Gandalf because at least Gandalf was gone for awhile. And while Gandalf's resurrection went nowhere, at least more than 3 named characters cared.

Yes, that is why Jon Snow's death and resurrection will have massive repercussions in the books, will effect both the character and events afterwards very much. I'd even go so far as to view a resurrected Jon as 'Jon Snow 2.0', a completely different version of the character. Even more so than, say, Daenerys at the beginning of AGoT (the timid girl under Viserys' thumb) and the self-confident Mother of Dragons at the end of the book. That was a major transformation as well, but a death and a resurrection should be much more massive than that.

13 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

What do you mean use the Tyrells and the Ironborn earlier than they show up in the books?

I mean that characters could be introduced somewhat earlier to broaden the scope of the story from the start. For instance, we could have gotten Renly's and Margaerys' wedding at Highgarden, with a first glimpe at Mace and Olenna and Willas and Garlan.

13 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Loras Tyrell is in the first book and serves as a puzzle piece in the "Who killed Jon Arryn and why" mystery. The entire Greyjoy family is introduced and directly talked about in the second book and Theon refers to them almost every time he has dialogue in the first book.

There I meant that the AFfC Ironborn story should have been part of the ASoS seasons. Balon is the first king to die, meaning the plot around Euron and Asha and Victarion and Aeron should have unfolded from that point on, not as late as it is told in AFfC.

13 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I do 100% agree with further foreshadowing the Aegon plot, having Myrcella and Oakheart meeting the Martells onscreen or showing the beginning of Arianne and Oakheart's affair. I don't think it's completely necessary but I do think that it would help: especially in the case of Aegon.

Yes, the advantage when you know where a story is going you can streamline things and introduce and prepare for them in a manner that helps the story to flow properly, not obscure things.

[BlackLightning]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There I meant that the AFfC Ironborn story should have been part of the ASoS seasons. Balon is the SECOND king to die, meaning the plot around Euron and Asha and Victarion and Aeron should have unfolded from that point on, not as late as it is told in AFfC.

 

Oh okay. Gotcha.

Just curious: what would you say is the significance of Balon being the second king to die? Does he have to be the seciond? Is Euron's impact lessened if he doesn't enter the story until after Robb Stark and Joffrey Baratheon die.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, the advantage when you know where a story is going you can streamline things and introduce and prepare for them in a manner that helps the story to flow properly, not obscure things.

I understand than that obscuring story elements are a book thing and streamlining and fully displaying story elements suit the medium of TV and film better.

However, I feel like the mystery and surprise of Aegon (among other things) can be ruined if they are telegraphed too soon or too explicitly.

For example, I honestly wouldn't have fArya pop up or mention fArya until the very moment when Theon is "made" to walk her down the aisle or whatever.

But having Renly and Margaery's wedding play out (perhaps alternative or in addition to getting what we got in the series with Loras convincing Renly to make a bid for the kingship), seeing Prince Doran and his family extend a warm welcome to Myrcella as a cold open in season 2, watching the "secret" love affair between Arianne and Oakheart play out in the A Storm of Swords seasons.

But the show would have to make good use of flashbacks and dreams to make some of that work.

That was another major flaw of D&D: I can't think of a single TV series created after Twin Peaks (1990) and Dallas (1978-1991) that doesn't either:

1. regularly make use of flashbacks, dreams, hallucinations or visions: when the plot demands it, when a character arc demands it or to simply break-up the monotony and jazz up the storytelling
2. have an episode that serves as a origin story or address unresolved plot threads
3. or doesn't have a major flashback/dream/vision/hallucination episode (or sometimes season).

That's a MAJOR issue.