Jump to content

the next House of the Dragon thread


EggBlue

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Critics by and large aren't going to be the people who jump into Hot D with a cannonball from a diving board. They are not people who are going to want to be transported to Westeros and relive all of their decade of love all over again.

But again, HBO is a premium network, they put their reputation on the line every time they launch a show. They wouldn't have greenlit HotD if they weren't sure that it would be as acclaimed as all their other programming. A metacritic score of 69 is not what they had in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one bit of criticism that is really worrying to me is about the dialogue. From conversations with other people, the show was always considerd a tad slow but the dialogue made up for this, as it meant that the shwo could still be interesting without the storylines progressing quickly. If this isn't the case for HOTD, where they will probably have to stretch out more of the story, that could become an issue that might lead to people tuning out. 

I was always quite confident that this was the best pick for a spin-off and it could do well, much more than the bloodmoon show, the Jon Snow thing or really any other. It really makes you wonder what HBO would do if this show isn't a success, especially since Game Of Thrones is (regardless of what people think of season 8) one of the best IPs that they have. This show has almost every thing that made Game Of Thrones a hit (plotting, schemes, twists, shocks, etc) so I still think it should do really well despite the mild reviews (which might just be playing it safe).  

One thing that is really odd though is the obsession from the marketing team with dragons. It almost makes you think that they actually believe a piece of CGI is gonna make this show a hit lol. Doubt anyone genuinely cares much about them, and I don't really see the source material giving the dragons a status that is worthy of where they have been in terms of promotion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But again, HBO is a premium network, they put their reputation on the line every time they launch a show. They wouldn't have greenlit HotD if they weren't sure that it would be as acclaimed as all their other programming. A metacritic score of 69 is not what they had in mind.

I don't think they frankly will care whatsoever. They're here for franchise restoration and rebuilding the show's reputation as well as good will from its massive-massive fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Unloyal Bannermen said:

The one bit of criticism that is really worrying to me is about the dialogue. From conversations with other people, the show was always considerd a tad slow but the dialogue made up for this, as it meant that the shwo could still be interesting without the storylines progressing quickly. If this isn't the case for HOTD, where they will probably have to stretch out more of the story, that could become an issue that might lead to people tuning out. 

I was always quite confident that this was the best pick for a spin-off and it could do well, much more than the bloodmoon show, the Jon Snow thing or really any other. It really makes you wonder what HBO would do if this show isn't a success, especially since Game Of Thrones is (regardless of what people think of season 8) one of the best IPs that they have. This show has almost every thing that made Game Of Thrones a hit (plotting, schemes, twists, shocks, etc) so I still think it should do really well despite the mild reviews (which might just be playing it safe).  

One thing that is really odd though is the obsession from the marketing team with dragons. It almost makes you think that they actually believe a piece of CGI is gonna make this show a hit lol. Doubt anyone genuinely cares much about them, and I don't really see the source material giving the dragons a status that is worthy of where they have been in terms of promotion. 

 

Agree about both the dialogue and the dragons. Even the positive reviews haven’t praised the dialogue—again, it seems lukewarm. Not cringey like the later seasons of GOT, but just kind of bland and unmemorable. And I never got the impression that most people were all that interested in the dragons. If anything, I think their significance was more that they enhanced the power fantasy around Daenerys—she was even more extra special because she had magical pets that no one else did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IFR said:

Good source material means nothing if you don't have people who are proficient at adapting the material. It probably took a good deal of luck as well, but people like to pretend that Benioff and Weis just bumbled into the material and accidentally cobbled together one of the most successful shows of all time, saved by the brilliance of the source material. This is patently ridiculous.

I'd say these two just don't deserve much of the credit there. The original pilot sucked, their original writing is bad or average, their creative decisions mostly don't fit with the actual story. The reason why this show was a success is because the story was good, the actors were good, the production values and directing was good ... at least in the first couple of seasons.

I mean, movies/shows are always group efforts, and if that's anywhere true to the extreme it is the good seasons of GoT.

Have you actually checked how much original writing there is in GoT's early seasons? Sure enough, they move dialogue to other characters and stuff ... but it doesn't matter if it is Donal Noye or Tyrion Lannister who says the lines. The words are still George's.

13 hours ago, IFR said:

Watchmen (using just one example) is very good source material. And the movie adaptation is loyal to it. And the movie is...well, I thought it wasn't too bad. But it was a mere shade of the quality of the graphic novel.

I'd say it is pretty good actually. That it might not work that well in a movie might be simply because the story isn't that well suited for a (single) movie. ASoIaF is a very big story, but it is perfectly suited to be adapted as a premium TV show.

13 hours ago, IFR said:

Interestingly, an inverse example is The Godfather. The movie is actually quite loyal to the book, with most of the dialogue pulled from the book itself. The movie however made a lot of intelligent, judicious editing, and created something remarkable out of a fairly underwhelming book.

That is a separate issue entirely. A bad book can make for a good movie and vice versa. GoT could also be a great TV show in its own right even if ASoIaF sucked. The Godfather just is a great movie and a great adaptation.

12 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

They did make some improvements. Adding a bit of love between Robb and Talisa was nice. Yeah it was a typical Hollywood cliché, but it added some much needed romance in a series devoid of such things (if we ignore Dany/Drogo). Catelyn and Ned had a successful marriage, but there was never much of a focus on their warmth. 

I think the love story between Robb and Jeyne as given in the books - which could have been easily been portrayed and expanded by some scenes - was infinitely better then this Talisa stuff. One could have easily build up this romance by showing us Jeyne early hearing story about the Young Wolf and getting worked up about him in a Sansa-like fashion. For Robb the whole thing has even more meaning, too, considering he falls for Jeyne after he learns about the fall of Winterfell. There are a lot of levels to this relationship. They could have even elaborated on the intrigues behind the whole thing, adding tragedy to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Agree about both the dialogue and the dragons. Even the positive reviews haven’t praised the dialogue—again, it seems lukewarm. Not cringey like the later seasons of GOT, but just kind of bland and unmemorable. And I never got the impression that most people were all that interested in the dragons. If anything, I think their significance was more that they enhanced the power fantasy around Daenerys—she was even more extra special because she had magical pets that no one else did.

I think the dragons are actually something only the book audience really cares about ... because they know about the mystical bond between dragon and dragonrider and expect that to play a role in the actual ASoIaF story as it continues. The show completely glossed that over, making the dragons just oversized super weapons of Daenerys ... who were then killed in a ridiculously easy fashion.

Not sure why anyone watching only the show should particularly care about the dragons ... HotD first has to establish the bond between them and what it means, etc. before people might start to care. How little GoT cared for the dragons can best be illustrated by the fact that the show never named them ... only to have characters arbitarily use their names in the later seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I think the love story between Robb and Jeyne as given in the books - which could have been easily been portrayed and expanded by some scenes - was infinitely better then this Talisa stuff. One could have easily build up this romance by showing us Jeyne early hearing story about the Young Wolf and getting worked up about him in a Sansa-like fashion. For Robb the whole thing has even more meaning, too, considering he falls for Jeyne after he learns about the fall of Winterfell. There are a lot of levels to this relationship. They could have even elaborated on the intrigues behind the whole thing, adding tragedy to it.

I agree Jeyne would have been a more interesting love interest than Talisa. But as is the books didn’t explore any romance with them so the show added something. 
 

The books make it seem Jeyne was just a warm body in the right place at the right time and Robb’s nobility kept him from abandoning her removing any agency Jeyne might have had had in actually getting him to fall in love with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I agree Jeyne would have been a more interesting love interest than Talisa. But as is the books didn’t explore any romance with them so the show added something. 
 

The books make it seem Jeyne was just a warm body in the right place at the right time and Robb’s nobility kept him from abandoning her removing any agency Jeyne might have had had in actually getting him to fall in love with her.

I agree that books missed out a lot regarding both Robb's campaign in Westerlands and his romance with Jeyne. however, the show threw away an underdeveloped concept and put another underdeveloped concept in its place . 

 

there was another post earlier in the thread saying the romance between Robb and Talisa was a good addition  since genuine romantic relationship were pretty much lacking in the show. I agree with the latter part of this statement. but that's not to say Talisa addition was a positive change . they had plenty of material to work with in the show , Robb /Jeyne is one example that could have even created a will they won't they kinda romance before they end up marrying and a struggle to deal with their choice after they do marry . Jon/Yigrete were another couple that could have benefited if their screen time wasn't all about cock jokes and cringe lines (admittedly some of which came directly from the books) . not to mention, Dany/Drogo romance that the show took a problematic relationship at best , multiply its problems by 5 and tried to sell it as true love..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of romance , I watched an interview with Steve Toussaint today and he talked about how Corlys is the most of his real self when he is with his wife and how his love for his wife is a defining quality in him... poor Steve will be so crushed if they go with Hull boys , Corlys's sons! unless , they go with my idea that the Mouse herself was a bastard of Corlys prior to his marriage .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the dragons are actually something only the book audience really cares about ... because they know about the mystical bond between dragon and dragonrider and expect that to play a role in the actual ASoIaF story as it continues. The show completely glossed that over, making the dragons just oversized super weapons of Daenerys ... who were then killed in a ridiculously easy fashion.

Not sure why anyone watching only the show should particularly care about the dragons ... HotD first has to establish the bond between them and what it means, etc. before people might start to care. How little GoT cared for the dragons can best be illustrated by the fact that the show never named them ... only to have characters arbitarily use their names in the later seasons.

No, @Lord Varys.

Just no.

Do you know who cares about dragons?

EVERYBODY.

Why?

Because DRAGONS. Seriously, my wife has been a lifelong dragon fan and that is something that crosses genres from fantasy series to fantasy series. A lot of people are going to be tuning in not for George R.R. Martin's dragons but dragons in general. Sort of like why people still watch Jurassic Park despite the movies being objectively terrible after the first one. Why? Because dinosaurs are awesome in much the same way dragons are.

A friend of mine recently asked, "Why was dragon riders of Pern so big? I don't get it."

I answered, "Because people in it ride dragons."

You can get sex in a lot of shows but you can't get dragons.

Quote

I think the love story between Robb and Jeyne as given in the books - which could have been easily been portrayed and expanded by some scenes - was infinitely better then this Talisa stuff. One could have easily build up this romance by showing us Jeyne early hearing story about the Young Wolf and getting worked up about him in a Sansa-like fashion. For Robb the whole thing has even more meaning, too, considering he falls for Jeyne after he learns about the fall of Winterfell. There are a lot of levels to this relationship. They could have even elaborated on the intrigues behind the whole thing, adding tragedy to it.

I think Robb and Jeyne work very well in the books because it's not a great romance. It's two children who fall in love during a hot blooded set of events that make a very stupid but romantic decision to elope that results in his horrifying demise as well as the destruction of his cause. It's an anti-romance because it's such horrible disproportionate consequences for something that shouldn't be that way.

Talissa and Rob was a terribly written romance that goes nowhere and seems like they're all a lot more sensible so it makes the stupidity of the action worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous that people think that D&D were bumbling idiots and that Game of Thrones was an automatic television success no matter who was handling it. I'm rewatching the show now (up to the end of season 3) and it's really an incredible accomplishment. There are so many ways a show like this could have failed, crushed by the weight of its many stories, characters, etc... This is not an easy book series to adapt. Think of the amount of backstory they had to deliver in Season 1 alone, all through dialogue. Think of the number of seperate plotlines and character arcs that barely intersect as of Season 2- more than any other show in television history. There are definitely missteps in Seasons 1 and 2 as they figure it out (some of the embarassing sexposition scenes, season 2's tendency to spend three minutes with each character an episode), but it's amazing how quickly they got it right.

And since I'm rewatching the early seasons, I can confirm that there is in fact tons of original dialogue and original scenes which enrich the show and many of the characters, who in the book series are always seen from fixed perspectives. Even scenes which are very similar to their book counterparts are given additional depth through small adaptation choices: the execution of Ned Stark comes to mind. Amazing and shocking scene in the books, of course, but the staging of it, the addition of Ned seeing Arya by Baelor's statue and sending Yoren to her, the fact that the scene doesn't end with the dumb cliffhanger of Arya having a knife to her throat... Many of these are not necessarily obvious choices. But they take a great book scene and turn it into a fantastic TV scene. That takes talent. Of course, the actors, set and costume designers, director, etc... all deserve their due for this too. But I hope that the middling reception of House of the Dragons teaches some people on the internet that making a show like this is not easy, and hopefully leads to a reappraisal of just how great so much of Game of Thrones was.

As for HBO/Discovery, I'm guessing they're a little worried... But I think they care more about audience reception and viewing numbers than critics for a property like this, to see whether there's interest in twenty more Westeros TV shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

It's ridiculous that people think that D&D were bumbling idiots and that Game of Thrones was an automatic television success no matter who was handling it.

I feel like the issue is that people don't want to be able to give a nuanced version of the issue. D&D did a fantastic job with the first five seasons but didn't want to continue past that point and were basically forced to, which was accompanied by them trying to cut huge sections of the show to try to wrap it up.

Which gives people justifiable room to be angry and criticize them even if they can also state nobody else would have brought ASOIF to the screen but those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I feel like the issue is that people don't want to be able to give a nuanced version of the issue. D&D did a fantastic job with the first five seasons but didn't want to continue past that point and were basically forced to, which was accompanied by them trying to cut huge sections of the show to try to wrap it up.

Which gives people justifiable room to be angry and criticize them even if they can also state nobody else would have brought ASOIF to the screen but those two.

There was more sentimentality as well like when Robb is striking at the tree after being notified of his father’s death.

20 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

It's ridiculous that people think that D&D were bumbling idiots and that Game of Thrones was an automatic television success no matter who was handling it. I'm rewatching the show now (up to the end of season 3) and it's really an incredible accomplishment. There are so many ways a show like this could have failed, crushed by the weight of its many stories, characters, etc... This is not an easy book series to adapt. Think of the amount of backstory they had to deliver in Season 1 alone, all through dialogue. Think of the number of seperate plotlines and character arcs that barely intersect as of Season 2- more than any other show in television history. There are definitely missteps in Seasons 1 and 2 as they figure it out (some of the embarassing sexposition scenes, season 2's tendency to spend three minutes with each character an episode), but it's amazing how quickly they got it right.

And since I'm rewatching the early seasons, I can confirm that there is in fact tons of original dialogue and original scenes which enrich the show and many of the characters, who in the book series are always seen from fixed perspectives. Even scenes which are very similar to their book counterparts are given additional depth through small adaptation choices: the execution of Ned Stark comes to mind. Amazing and shocking scene in the books, of course, but the staging of it, the addition of Ned seeing Arya by Baelor's statue and sending Yoren to her, the fact that the scene doesn't end with the dumb cliffhanger of Arya having a knife to her throat... Many of these are not necessarily obvious choices. But they take a great book scene and turn it into a fantastic TV scene. That takes talent. Of course, the actors, set and costume designers, director, etc... all deserve their due for this too. But I hope that the middling reception of House of the Dragons teaches some people on the internet that making a show like this is not easy, and hopefully leads to a reappraisal of just how great so much of Game of Thrones was.

As for HBO/Discovery, I'm guessing they're a little worried... But I think they care more about audience reception and viewing numbers than critics for a property like this, to see whether there's interest in twenty more Westeros TV shows.

Brilliant, I agree with everything you just said.

57 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

I agree that books missed out a lot regarding both Robb's campaign in Westerlands and his romance with Jeyne. however, the show threw away an underdeveloped concept and put another underdeveloped concept in its place . 

 

there was another post earlier in the thread saying the romance between Robb and Talisa was a good addition  since genuine romantic relationship were pretty much lacking in the show. I agree with the latter part of this statement. but that's not to say Talisa addition was a positive change . they had plenty of material to work with in the show , Robb /Jeyne is one example that could have even created a will they won't they kinda romance before they end up marrying and a struggle to deal with their choice after they do marry . Jon/Yigrete were another couple that could have benefited if their screen time wasn't all about cock jokes and cringe lines (admittedly some of which came directly from the books) . not to mention, Dany/Drogo romance that the show took a problematic relationship at best , multiply its problems by 5 and tried to sell it as true love..

While reading this I walked into someone watching a scene were Robb and Talisa bone. 
 

Anyways, yeah I agree. I said before I thought the books were lacking in any real romance but Jeyne would have been better than Talisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EggBlue said:

speaking of romance , I watched an interview with Steve Toussaint today and he talked about how Corlys is the most of his real self when he is with his wife and how his love for his wife is a defining quality in him... poor Steve will be so crushed if they go with Hull boys , Corlys's sons! unless , they go with my idea that the Mouse herself was a bastard of Corlys prior to his marriage.

I guess it will have to be Corlys now, since they apparently have

Spoiler

Rhaenyra say she and Laenor tried for years to have a child, before they took the Harwin route, so it might be that Laenor Velaryon is actually sterile in the show.

What they could do to strengthen the Velaryon-Targaryen link in another fashion if they erased all the Velaryons marrying into House Targaryen is to make Corlys' mother a Targaryen - say a Vaella who lived, or one of Jaehaerys' daughters. Show Corlys is much younger than book Corlys, so that could easily work, especially since Viserys rules much longer in the show than in the book.

Have no problem with Corlys-Rhaenys being a loving couple in the show ... although in the book that is more a fiction, I guess. There is an enormous age gap between them, after all, and Corlys clearly loved (lots of) women before and after he married Rhaenys. On his side that was the best match he could make, fathering sons who would become dragonriders and sit the Iron Throne one day.

Regarding ASoIaF - I don't think that it actually lacks romance. I mean, Dany-Daario are a rather interesting romance, although one that happens later in the story. There is also Tyrion-Shae (which is at least a romance on his part), and later Arys Oakheart's deep feelings for Arianne Martell.

38 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

No, @Lord Varys.

Just no.

Do you know who cares about dragons?

EVERYBODY.

Why?

Because DRAGONS.

Hihi, apparently not.

I mean, I've not been exactly very convinced that this show is going to be a big success considering how, well, trite the story is. It is pointless succession war leading to nothing but grief and ruin, covering the dead history of a doomed and, ultimately, misguised and irrelevant family.

Considering that the first season is the buildup to all this it might be the best and most interesting, because things are not yet set in stone, there is still hope, etc. The dragon spectacle is irrelevant. Folks have to like and care for the characters. Which is why I wanted them to really take their time and not rush to the Dance in the first season. That could turn out to be a mistake.

33 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

It's ridiculous that people think that D&D were bumbling idiots and that Game of Thrones was an automatic television success no matter who was handling it.

They were bumbling idiots ... but this doesn't mean that the show would have been an 'automatic success no matter what'. Things are not that black and white. The show was a success because there were many other professionals involved. People who actually knew how to make good TV.

33 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I'm rewatching the show now (up to the end of season 3) and it's really an incredible accomplishment. There are so many ways a show like this could have failed, crushed by the weight of its many stories, characters, etc... This is not an easy book series to adapt. Think of the amount of backstory they had to deliver in Season 1 alone, all through dialogue. Think of the number of seperate plotlines and character arcs that barely intersect as of Season 2- more than any other show in television history. There are definitely missteps in Seasons 1 and 2 as they figure it out (some of the embarassing sexposition scenes, season 2's tendency to spend three minutes with each character an episode), but it's amazing how quickly they got it right.

So what? The books also have to include the backstory. And it is actually not done that well. I mean, they completely botched Jaime-Cersei being twin siblings in the original pilot ... but even in the second pilot it is not that obvious.

33 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

And since I'm rewatching the early seasons, I can confirm that there is in fact tons of original dialogue and original scenes which enrich the show and many of the characters, who in the book series are always seen from fixed perspectives. Even scenes which are very similar to their book counterparts are given additional depth through small adaptation choices:

I don't like many of those 'additional scenes'. Folks were keen for them originally because of the limited POVs in the books ... but aside from some interesting bits in season 1 this actually turned to the disadvantage of characters and plots, turning something that's actually a grand and sprawling setting into a chamber play. Sure enough, one can have a scene where only two people talk ... but this setting actually also includes lots and lots of group discussions at council and court. That kind of silliness starts with season 2 & 3 I think, but is all over the place when everybody and their grandfather fall over themselvesto be alone with Jonathan Pryce in a room so he can lecture them for - what is it? Two and half a season?

These writers let themselves drive by the great actors they cast and not by the great story they were trying to tell. That was a poison that turned something that's great because of witty conversation and dialogues into something that's resembling bad silent movies ... with minutes of screentime that consist only of meaningless meaningful stares and long entrances.

A good writer tries to tell a good story. He doesn't cape to the whims of actors or gives in to his desire how he would like an actor or actress act on screen.

33 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

the execution of Ned Stark comes to mind. Amazing and shocking scene in the books, of course, but the staging of it, the addition of Ned seeing Arya by Baelor's statue and sending Yoren to her, the fact that the scene doesn't end with the dumb cliffhanger of Arya having a knife to her throat... Many of these are not necessarily obvious choices. But they take a great book scene and turn it into a fantastic TV scene. That takes talent.

That is directing and editing, though, not writing. And the episode in question here was not directed by D&D. In fact, Weiss directed one episode in season 4 and D&D together the last episode of the final seasons. That's it - and apparently their attempts to influence the directing of various other episodes were not exactly positive to put it mildly.

33 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Of course, the actors, set and costume designers, director, etc... all deserve their due for this too. But I hope that the middling reception of House of the Dragons teaches some people on the internet that making a show like this is not easy, and hopefully leads to a reappraisal of just how great so much of Game of Thrones was.

GoT had the better story to tell - ASoIaF is infinitely more complex than the Dance of the Dragons could ever hope to be. But GoT botched that. HotD can never hope to tell a story that's just not there. In the end, it is a story about two bitching women and a pointless and silly succession war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I’m watching the early GOT episodes, and when the Stark theme plays my heart swoons. 
 

God this show came up with so much, the intro toy map, the foreboding music, and the conversations many of which are not from the books. 
 

The set design, the usage of colors to signify different locations, it was all brilliant. House of the Dragon can’t be this good, it was a once in a generation show that’s not going to be replicated and George should be over the moon that he got his books adapted like this. 
 

Honestly the first three books were great and the show made them better in my humble opinion.  
 

Edit: an example from season 2 is when Renly and Stannis meet. I posted this once but when Stannis says a few bolts of cloth won’t make you king Renly (in the books) goes off listing the houses behind his back in an exercise in extended world building.  
 

In the show he just says “no, the men holding those bolts of cloth will make me king”. 
 

Infinitely more powerful and actual shows his charismatic side, not just his smarmy arrogance. 
 

I think Martin is making a big mistake if he thinks Avondale can do for him what D&D. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Ok, I’m watching the early GOT episodes, and when the Stark theme plays my heart swoons. 
 

God this show came up with so much, the intro toy map, the foreboding music, and the conversations many of which are not from the books. 
 

The set design, the usage of colors to signify different locations, it was all brilliant. House of the Dragon can’t be this good, it was a once in a generation show that’s not going to be replicated and George should be over the moon that he got his books adapted like this. 
 

Honestly the first three books were great and the show made them better in my humble opinion. 

I thought Dany in Qarth was awful, however.  And it foreshadowed what would go wrong with later seasons.  Unexplained shifts in character (Doreah);  pointless conflict (Dany and the Spice King);  plot holes (the Dothraki are murdered, then regenerate, Xaro’s palace has no guards).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I thought Dany in Qarth was awful, however.  And it foreshadowed what would go wrong with later seasons.  Unexplained shifts in character (Doreah);  pointless conflict (Dany and the Spice King);  plot holes (the Dothraki are murdered, then regenerate, Xaro’s palace has no guards).

I don't really know about that stuff, but Dany had some excellent lines of dialogue in Qarth. Like talking about how the dragons are the only children she will ever have, and her "my dreams become real" speech (none of which are taken from the books). It had such a consistent level of quality that it was entrancing to watch, even for a mainstream audience. 

The show wasn't as concerned with consistent rules and logic which was its downfall, but the books obsession with making sure all the events happen in a realistic manner was also its downfall. And I think normal viewers not into the fantasy obsession with world-building and logistics were drawn the emotional power the dialogue and the actors gave. 

Dany speaking about her dragons and relating it back to her lack of child baring is what drove these mythical beasts home. Her plea to the wise men of Qarth, that is the stuff people cared about. As for Doreah, I guess she wanted money and power, I don't see how its unexplained. It's just something we didn't know about.  

Reading the script for the Cargyll twins from HotD shows how dry the writing is in comparison.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Edit: an example from season 2 is when Renly and Stannis meet. I posted this once but when Stannis says a few bolts of cloth won’t make you king Renly (in the books) goes off listing the houses behind his back in an exercise in extended world building.  

Didn't the show turn Renly - a powerfully built, charismatic member of the royal family - into a kind of a clichéd gay character who couldn't see blood and preferred 'balls and masquerades' to manly business like tourneys and hunting?

Don't take me wrong - there are visual means the show applied which get things across better than dialogue or descriptions. But that's not part of the job writer has in the movie industry.

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I thought Dany in Qarth was awful, however.  And it foreshadowed what would go wrong with later seasons.  Unexplained shifts in character (Doreah);  pointless conflict (Dany and the Spice King);  plot holes (the Dothraki are murdered, then regenerate, Xaro’s palace has no guards).

Yes, Qarth is unwatchable for me. The same with the gutted Qhorin-Jon plot and the silly introduction of Ygritte.

The Qarth plot is actual a silly plot element they repeatedly used during the show. Somebody feigns to be rich (Xaro/Tywin) and magically uses this feigned wealth to acquire more and more power. Which was silly in Xaro's case and completely nonsensical in Tywin's case. I've written it often enough, the 'The Lannisters are broke' moment in season 4 (I think) was the moment where I completely detached from the show emotionally. That was just silly nonsense I could no longer take seriously. It was like some guy in ROTJ saying 'Well, the Empire is actually broke, and magic propels the second Death Star.'

I honestly also don't understand motivations and goals of any of the Qartheen characters. Not Xaro's and certainly not Pyat Pree's.

7 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I don't really know about that stuff, but Dany had some excellent lines of dialogue in Qarth. Like talking about how the dragons are the only children she will ever have, and her "my dreams become real" speech (none of which are taken from the books). It had such a consistent level of quality that it was entrancing to watch, even for a mainstream audience. 

The dragons as Dany's children are straight from the books ... and whether they are the only children she will ever have remains to be seen. Although she does believe that, too, in the books, due to Mirri's prophecy - which was never given in full in the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I

So what? The books also have to include the backstory. And it is actually not done that well. I mean, they completely botched Jaime-Cersei being twin siblings in the original pilot ... but even in the second pilot it is not that obvious.

 

That is directing and editing, though, not writing. And the episode in question here was not directed by D&D. In fact, Weiss directed one episode in season 4 and D&D together the last episode of the final seasons. That's it - and apparently their attempts to influence the directing of various other episodes were not exactly positive to put it mildly.

 

 

I think we pretty much disagree on everything here. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether the added scenes were enjoyable; you didn't like them, fair enough. But I don't think you give fair credit to the challenges of writing a television show vs. a book series. Yes, books have to include backstory... and they have a lot more tools for doing it. A single chapter, which can be read slowly and carefully if the reader wants, can present backstory through dialogue, but also through interior exposition, little bits of description here and there that constantly reinforce the reader's attention on a certain piece of information. You also have in a book like Game of Thrones nice family trees at the end that the reader can refer to at any time. There's a reason that there are many more books out there with the scope and number of characters as Game of Thrones than there are TV shows.

In a show, you can only use dialogue to provide backstory, characters' names, etc...  You have a finite number of actors, who each have to be budgeted for. You have a precise amount of time. Watching live, a viewer can't rewind. Given these limitations, and the number of characters they have to introduce in a single episode, D&D did a pretty amazing job in the final version of the pilot. Yes, I'm sure that some showwatchers were still confused about things at the end of episode 1. That's pretty common when you're writing a novelistic TV show (see: opening episode of the Wire). Considering how many non book-readers got into the most complicated show ever shot for television, they must have done a good job.

Quote

That is directing and editing, though, not writing. And the episode in question here was not directed by D&D. In fact, Weiss directed one episode in season 4 and D&D together the last episode of the final seasons. That's it - and apparently their attempts to influence the directing of various other episodes were not exactly positive to put it mildly

It was writing to have the scene set up as it was, to have Ned speak to Yoren, to have Yoren cover Arya's eyes, to end the scene when they did. And you're fooling yourself if you think that showrunners of shows aren't intimately involved in nearly every aspect of them. Directors on TV shows like Game of Thrones usually don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want; they have to follow a set style, need to make sure what they shoot fits in with the overall trajectory of the show and what the showrunners want, etc...

I'm not trying to deny credit from Taylor here. He was one of the best directors the show had. But it's silly to pretend that D&D were just kicking up their feet in their trailer while a series of directors and editors came in each week and made the show good in spite of their efforts.

 

Quote

A good writer tries to tell a good story. He doesn't cape to the whims of actors or gives in to his desire how he would like an actor or actress act on screen.

This is a massive oversimplification, especially when it comes to television, which is a much more collaborative process than writing a novel. Great television producers/writers constantly have to make hard choices based on real world factors. One of the factors that's worth considering is the quality of your actors: Michael Emerson was meant for a four episode stint on Lost until the producers saw what he was capable of and made him the leader of the Others, in the process creating an all-time classic television villain and character. Aaron Paul was meant for one season of Breaking Bad, but became the heart of the show.

Frankly, one of the best things D&D ever did was streamlining so much of the mess of AFFC/ADWD by making Cersei a more central character and villain, and is a great example of a smart  television writing choice that plays to a quality actor. There's a reason The Winds of Winter is one of the highest rated episodes of the show, and why GRRM is still stuck in the middle of the second act of his novels, twenty-two years later...

Edit: on Qarth - I agree that this part of the show is not a masterpiece. But it ain't no masterpiece in the books either. At least the show gave us a snarky Spicer King and Warlock Dean Pelton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Didn't the show turn Renly - a powerfully built, charismatic member of the royal family - into a kind of a clichéd gay character who couldn't see blood and preferred 'balls and masquerades' to manly business like tourneys and hunting? 
 

I don’t know, I’m a just pointing to this specific scene that was a better written version of the book’s.

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

.

The dragons as Dany's children are straight from the books ... and whether they are the only children she will ever have remains to be seen. Although she does believe that, too, in the books, due to Mirri's prophecy - which was never given in full in the show.

It frames the dragons as her only children because she can never give birth to a real child. It’s the framing of the scene that makes it work, and the increased sentimentality compared to the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...