HBO's Adaption of A Song of Ice and Fire

[Chairman7w]

I'm pretty sure they'll just bump up the ages, and leave out any sex scenes with them.

[lacuna]

I'm not entirely sure increasing the characters' ages is necessary, if HBO is keeping in line with the practices from Rome.

SPOILER: Rome, season 1

I can't remember how old Octavian was in season 1, but I can't see him as more than 13-15 years old. Him (along with Posca) helping to carry Caesar into the closet during the latter's seizure, later sparked rumors that Octavian and Caesar were having a sexual affair, by the way of the servant woman who saw them. The producers didn't even sugarcoat it by putting in some sort of contrived social outrage. Not long after, Octavian had sex with a prostitute.

The actor, Max Pirkis, was then around 15-16 years, I think.

It's actually been a while since I saw season 1... I'll have to remedy that. If I'm misremembering, please correct.

So HBO can, if they feel it prudent, go more heavily on the innuendo approach, where nothing is seen, but everything is implied in the matter of underage (as far as we are concerned) sex.

Having 16 year old actors for 14 year old characters is basically a given anyway, isn't it?

[Bessieres]

Dany could be played by a young teenage girl....dont just film a sex scene...one could still film the romantic aspect of their wedding night, and then fade out, etc. I think it would be important to understand her coming to fall for and love Drogo, the sex isnt a necessary component to a viewers knowing about them.

Dany is supposed to be thirteen in the books but there's no way an actress of that age could play her since some scenes would be considered child pornography!

[Eärendil]

Dany is supposed to be thirteen in the books but there's no way an actress of that age could play her since some scenes would be considered child pornography!

I swear I read something that quoted GRRM talking about this very thing. I did a search and could not locate, but I will keep trying. I remember he stated something to the effect that a year in the world of Ice and Fire was 1/4th longer than a year on planet Earth. So 10 years in Westeros would actually be 12 1/2 years Earth time. So by comparison, Dany would be a around 16 years of age when she lost her maidenhood. This is also why most of the "kids" in these novels seem older than their age. Though there should be little doubt that the literature is inspired on the medieval period where adulthood and marriage/responsibility happened at a much earlier age. I am certain Martin has discussed this with the writers. I would think the actresses for Dany and Sansa will be of legal age. What ever is characterized would be legal.

[Asharak]

I swear I read something that quoted GRRM talking about this very thing. I did a search and could not locate, but I will keep trying. I remember he stated something to the effect that a year in the world of Ice and Fire was 1/4th longer than a year on planet Earth. So 10 years in Westeros would actually be 12 1/2 years Earth time. So by comparison, Dany would be a around 16 years of age when she lost her maidenhood. This is also why most of the "kids" in these novels seem older than their age. Though there should be little doubt that the literature is inspired on the medieval period where adulthood and marriage/responsibility happened at a much earlier age. I am certain Martin has discussed this with the writers. I would think the actresses for Dany and Sansa will be of legal age. What ever is characterized would be legal.

It would be great if this was true about the children, but wouldn’t GRRM have written it somewhere in the book if it was so?(Either in the back pages or the front?)

And that would also mean that Jaime for instance is 45 in earth years and that just sounds unlikely to me, if not impossible.

[Ran]

No, GRRM has never said that a Westerosi year is longer than a real year. His kids really are kids, and the age they are in the books is the age they would be in RL. George has made it easy for himself, as much as possible, regarding keeping track of time. A year in the series is exactly a year in RL, so that George doesn't have to constantly convert from one calendar to another when trying to sort out his timelines and so on.

There are child soldiers in Africa who've killed people at the age of 7 or 8, and there are married fathers of 12 years old running their own households in rural parts of India. This is not impossible stuff.

As far as how the TV show might handle things, I think the fact is that they can say Dany is 13-14 without a problem. They just don't show the sex, basically. Pretty straightforward. I won't be surprised if they tack on a couple of years to a lot of the children, simply so that the actors are nearer to grown and thus less likely to change hugely over a multi-year program, but there's no way it's a primary concern of theirs.

Let me add that the So Spake Martin collection contains almost everything of note George has stated regarding the series in e-mails to fans, reported conversations from conventions, and so on. If you've read somewhere that GRRM said such-and-such a thing, the SSM is likely to contain a record of those remarks.

[Werthead]

Some commentary from a guy who claims to have worked for HBO:

i wanted to make a couple observations.

1. as a commercial director in the industry, and having done several projects for hbo directly, i know that, for instance, when sopranos was active, and it would air its season finale, that the next day their subscription rate would drop by 40%. that's not an exaggeration.

2. i also know that they have been trying to rekindle the renaissance that was hbo when six feet under and sopranos held sway, and it has not been easy. they are trying some lower budget series like tell me you love me, and in treatment. but other than the wire (one of the best tv series in the history of television), it's looking slim.

3. with their comedies (entourage, curb, even flight of the conchords), they are ripe for another big drama. sure rome cost them a lot, and a king arthur (while well trodden) might work to continue that line of interest, i think there are genuinely raised eyebrows at turning a classic fantasy epic into a tv series, something not done at this level before.

4. wert made a GREAT point when he mentioned HBO tracking carefully the interest of ADwD before dropping 70-100 million into the project. because as i said earlier they are looking for loyal subscribers!

5. for those worried about hbo skimping on production costs, know this: they just spent over 100 million us dollars to shoot the 7 part mini-series John Adams. and they have also green-lighted a 200 million us dollar "sequel" to band of brothers called "The Pacific" which follows the marines in the pacific from japan to their return home.

6. one last thing, hbo makes much of its money on dvd sales, so back to wert's point, if they see ADwD soar to #1 on the best-seller list, it will make them more eager to put out a series they know fans will scoop up in DVD sales, i can guarantee you that. a king arthur series has been done a lot, and may not have "fans" running to their nearest best buy on release day.

7. per the wert vs. mystar situation. it's funny to see mystar boldly state something in one post, and then spend the next 5 posts back pedaling, until he has somehow become a victim of a smear campaign. unless you know something for sure, don't talk about rumors as though they are a done deal (and yes, mystar, that is how you sounded). until there is an official announcement, it is all speculation. grrm is not going to sit around and not tell us just to not hurt his fans' feelings.

8. no news is not the same as 'the project is dead in the water . . . shelved . . . not right for hbo . . . etc.' where is all that coming from? that is an opinion, which leads to a thin rumor, which then will make those with better insight or whatever raise their voices to be heard, so people don't follow bad, or unfounded information.

okay, that's it for me. sorry but i just finished the first book (haven't read any others), and holy crap it might be my second favorite read behind gene wolfe's book of the new sun series (unparalleled btw). i was yawning through a lot of the DANY plotline, but man, talk about turning around my opinion of a character in the end, THAT'S how you do it folks, and as an aspiring writer of my own, it is highly inspiring stuff.

my passion and motivation to post is directly due to me finishing the book this morning on the train, i apologize if anyone finds my post offensive, but hey, it's all, simply, my opinion.

[Eärendil]

No, GRRM has never said that a Westerosi year is longer than a real year. His kids really are kids, and the age they are in the books is the age they would be in RL. George has made it easy for himself, as much as possible, regarding keeping track of time. A year in the series is exactly a year in RL, so that George doesn't have to constantly convert from one calendar to another when trying to sort out his timelines and so on.

Let me add that the So Spake Martin collection contains almost everything of note George has stated regarding the series in e-mails to fans, reported conversations from conventions, and so on. If you've read somewhere that GRRM said such-and-such a thing, the SSM is likely to contain a record of those remarks.

Thank you for the clarification and the SSM. You are working on The World Book, so I will not question your knowledge. As it turns out, I still could not locate that which I had read previously. Perhaps I will ask Martin that very question in person if I am able to meet him at technicon. The only post I could locate about the length of years on here note very substantial, and it described years as 1/3 instead of 1/4 longer. I really have myself convinced I read something more lengthy that included a GRRM quote, but again, this would be a great question to ask him in person.

[Ran]

Looking at that post, hobomagic just seems to be suggesting an opinion or an idea.

I'll go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that 1 year = 1 year, rather than just say I'm guessing. Not only is the evidence in the books rather overwhelming (9 month pregnancy, almost certainly 12 months to the year [it could be 13 months, but that just means that it's a lunar calendar, such as has been used in the real world by various cultures], age range of onset of first menses following that of the real world, the fact that 90 is considered really old, the fact that the characters are clearly humans rather than described in alien terms, and so on), but private correspondence with GRRM supports the conclusions drawn from that evidence; for example, on at least one occasion a fan directly told GRRM that it seemed that measurements of time were the same in Westeros as in RL and GRRM certainly didn't disagree with that.

His units of distance are the same too, BTW -- a mile is a mile, a stone is a stone, and so on. Basically he's keeping it simple for himself.

[Eärendil]

Ran, the 9 month pregnancy is pretty damning information. Thanks.

[Wargonaut]

Does it really matter if HBO bumps the children's ages up about 3 years? Would it hurt the story?

I personally don't see what difference it would make. Sure, some people think that the ages are important for reflecting mental and emotional maturity, a children's perspective, etc. But I think that these "children" in the books all seem about 3 years more mature - mentally, emotionally, and physically - than today's children in real life anyway. Thus, I can't think of how it would "harm" the story, plot, or character development if the children were made 3-4 years older for the television series.

On the other hand, I CAN see a lot of potential viewers - who don't know anything about the books, medieval culture, fantasy culture, or any "reasons" behind the young ages - being turned off by watching a 13 year old girl have sex in the 2nd episode with a dude that looks like a professional wrestler - a touch "brutal" to the average viewer.

Additionally, I think that many of the daunting tasks, monumental decisions, and leadership roles that these children take on will be far less believable - on screen, in the flesh, and without the privilege of a reader's imagination or an author's explanation - if the children are between 9-15 years of age. I understand that they get older as the series progresses, but most will still be teens when the series ends. I just think that more people will watch it and find it less far-fetched and easier to relate to if the characters are older on TV than in the books.

Again, if anyone can give me a solid, clear reason why they "shouldn't" age the characters - other than "it wouldn't be loyal to the series" - then I am all ears...

In the end, I just think it may turn more people away from the series to have the young characters be so young...

[edited to add the little conclusion]

[The Man]

I seem to remember GRRM actually saying somewhere (I don't have a link) that if he were writing the first book now, he'd write all the child characters as several years older due to his removal of the originally planned five-year gap. I have to think that would end up affecting the ages of the characters in the TV series - they'll probably all be older than they were in the books, since he can start that from scratch.

[hobomagic]

Looking at that post, hobomagic just seems to be suggesting an opinion or an idea.

Ran is right, I was suggesting this as a solution, not proposing it as canon. In general though, the timeline is troublesome. Some parts move too fast, some too slow. I can't imagine it won't be significantly altered.

That said, I do seem to recall Martin saying somewhere that with the demise of the 5 year gap, he wishes he had spread out the early years a bit more.

Does it really matter if HBO bumps the children's ages up about 3 years? Would it hurt the story?

I personally don't see what difference it would make. Sure, some people think that the ages are important for reflecting mental and emotional maturity, a children's perspective, etc. But I think that these "children" in the books all seem about 3 years more mature - mentally, emotionally, and physically - than today's children in real life anyway. Thus, I can't think of how it would "harm" the story, plot, or character development if the children were made 3-4 years older for the television series.

On the other hand, I CAN see a lot of potential viewers - who don't know anything about the books, medieval culture, fantasy culture, or any "reasons" behind the young ages - being turned off by watching a 13 year old girl have sex in the 2nd episode with a dude that looks like a professional wrestler - a touch "brutal" to the average viewer.

Absolutely correct. Low downside and high upside.

Additionally, I think that many of the daunting tasks, monumental decisions, and leadership roles that these children take on will be far less believable - on screen, in the flesh, and without the privilege of a reader's imagination or an author's explanation - if the children are between 9-15 years of age. I understand that they get older as the series progresses, but most will still be teens when the series ends. I just think that more people will watch it and find it less far-fetched and easier to relate to if the characters are older on TV than in the books.

If the series is going to work, it can't be labled kids stuff, and the easiest way to do that is to have it star a bunch of little kids. I don't know why so many fantasy authors seem so intent on young heroes, but it kills the genre

[Ran]

Yep, that's definitely true -- in retrospect he would have made some of the characters a bit older, so that seems likely to help guide how old those characters would be in the adaption.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I think Martin is waiting to release Dance with Dragons to coincide with what will presumably be a popular debut with his show. More money that way. There's no way he is still writing it.

[Ran]

That would be a joke. George is definitely still writing it.

The last news I've heard, BTW, which I don't see mentioned anywhere, is that it seems HBO's head of development has left unexpectedly. HBO is currently looking for a replacement. Unfortunately, this is not likely to be good news -- new heads of development tend to want to clear the board and start fresh. OTOH, the likely frontrunner for the job right now is a British outsider who was involved in wrangling the money from the BBC to do ROME, so maybe they're keen on giving a big budget sorta-historical fantasy epic a go.

[Ashara]

Well, there was never much hope. If ASOIF is competing against Arthur-themed series, I don't see it winning, simply due to the mass-appeal of the concept. It doesn't matter that there had been 300 movies based on Arthur cycle already, it is a familiar stuff, so they will go with that rather than risking with something that is not a part of the mass-culture. It's too bad, but on another hand, with 13 episodes per book, maybe it's for the best.

[b09boy]

Just a few things of note.

1) Rome's costs could have been cosiderably less. The makers of that show did not so much as attempt to cut the costs down, aside from limiting battle scenes. It truly is one of the greatest shows made, but they weren't paying much attention to the money they were spending. For instance, they filmed in one of the, if not THE most expensive set places in the world, built up huge portions of the city and very frequently had enormous scenes with dozens, if not hundreds, of background characters. A Song of Ice and Fire would be expensive, no doubt, but there's a lot they could do to make it less expensive than the likes of Rome.

2) As has been said, DVD sales are HBO's true backing and one can't ignore that fantasies do sell DVDs. HBO should well know that a ot of people are waiting for an adult themed fantasy. King Arthur would probably pull in subscribers, but ASoIaF would probably sell more, partially due to most people already having some form of the King Arthur tale, partially because it'd be more of the cult fantasy type which sells DVDs like nuts. I doubt either is what they're looking for to be the next Sopranos or Six Feet Under, however. Fantasies and historical fiction really don't do that so much. Unless commercialized brilliantly.

3) If the series gets a green light there's little doubt everyone's ages would be bumped up consderably. This is unavoidable. You don't want a multi million dollar adult themed project to come off as kiddy.

4) If there's something to worry about it'd be cutting out the Others or having them changed as such as to tie in with Mance. They might want a plan in case they want to back out of the series early in which case it's easier to end without huge cliffhanger like the threat of the Others.

[Angalin]

However, this past week NBC announced that it has bought the BBC's 13-part Merlin.

ETA: From buzzsugar.com,

Merlin brings to life a new legend for a modern audience. Merlin is an exciting, hour-long fantasy series set in the mythic city of Camelot — but inspired by 21st Century storytelling. Before Merlin (Colin Morgan, Doctor Who) and Arthur (Bradley James, Lewis) became legends, they were ambitious young men looking for adventure, hoping to live up to their family's expectations, discovering love and finding their own true destiny, making mistakes along the way. The innovative, action-packed drama has cross-generational appeal and paints a picture of Merlin and Arthur's early life that audiences have never witnessed before. Anthony Head (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Richard Wilson (A Passage to India), Angel Coulby (Magicians) and Katie McGrath (The Tudors) also star.

[Black Wizard]

Will this Merlin series be about the Holy Grail and crap like that?