How will the TV series deal with R+L=J?

[Padraig]

Venardhi, I do agree with you about avoiding info-dumping but I am not jumping on the flashback bandwagon either. I would like 1 or 2 a season but i'm a wary of the idea of throwing flashbacks at any possible story problem. It seems lazy storytelling, which wouldn't work in the same neat way as they do in the books. But I maybe doing my own over-reacting here.

But yes, I do think we need some comments about Jon's mystery parentage. A simple "promise me" could work.

In the end, we are relying on Howland Reed to explain in the books what is going on. And we can rely on him to tell us about tToJ in the TV series also.

We do know that Jon Arryn has been cast, so unless they shoot a deathbed scene early on, there will be one flashback. If they flashback there, I would be more confident of a ToJ flashback. And once I see one flashback, i'll be more confident they can do them well. :)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

The way telling a story on screen works is that you always show rather than tell. You use the tools you're given.

Its rule number one really. That's why I'd say some kind of visual explanation for the war and the whole Rhaegar/Lyanna/Robert/Ned/Jon situation is needed, you can't rely on dialogue to explain since the audience just won't connect with it.

The Tower of Joy scene needs to be shown in some fashion, whether shortened and streamlined for TV or not.

[Venardhi]

With the flashbacks I have in mind, they should be a few seconds at a time.

"You killed him."

Flash to young Robert smashing Rhaegar with his hammer

- ". . . Only once"

"She loved Roses"

- Flash of bloodied hand dropping a fist-full of blue roses. "Promise me Ned"

The Hound gazing in fear as the Blackwater comes alive with green fire.

- Flash to him as a boy with his face being ground into flaming coals by his brother's enormous hand.

etc.

With enough tact and a bit of dialogue here and there along the way to give context, that should be all we need to get the necessary back-story.

[Padraig]

With the flashbacks I have in mind, they should be a few seconds at a time.

I have to say...those examples appal me. :P

If we have to have flashbacks, i'd rather more detailed ones (like ToJ). I accept "show don't tell". But its acting. Robert should be able to act like he hates Rhaegar without needing us to see him kill Rhaegar. We shouldn't need to be spoon-fed these things. The Hound should be able to act scared of fire without us seeing him been burnt.

Maybe i'm way too optimistic here but imagining all these flashbacks is scary. (Obviously, i'll deal with them if they do happen. :)) Flashbacks is the only way to show a lot of stuff from the books but I think it is more likely that a lot of that stuff just wouldn't make the transition to the screen.

[Venardhi]

They're examples of the style, not necessarily exact scenes I want to see.

Fuller versions of the flashbacks may have their place along the way too, but many don't need more than a few seconds to get the point across.

[The SmilingKnight]

I have to say...those examples appal me. :P

If we have to have flashbacks, i'd rather more detailed ones (like ToJ). I accept "show don't tell". But its acting. Robert should be able to act like he hates Rhaegar without needing us to see him kill Rhaegar. We shouldn't need to be spoon-fed these things. The Hound should be able to act scared of fire without us seeing him been burnt.

Maybe i'm way too optimistic here but imagining all these flashbacks is scary. (Obviously, i'll deal with them if they do happen. :))

Youre not making any sense at all.

Flashbacks are a normal and common method of portraying events from the past that influence the present line of events, or provide additional explanations, clarifications etc.

They give fuller depth to events and characters you can see. They can be visually and emotionally impressive pieces of plot and thats what you want when youre filming a book into a visual medium, right?

You need to impress and shake your audience not have them "hearing about important events" but showing them those important events.

And you argue against them purely on some personal dislike which doesnt make any sense at all.

We know that Songs are hugely interconnected to the past and frankly, making many important characters do without their deeper layer is complete nonsense.

Why in the world would anyone prefer "Robert who is angry at Rhaegar" rather then "Robert smashing Rhaegar chest on the Trident, bloody rubies falling in the water, soldiers from both armies scrambling to get them like beggars"?

Why in the world would it be better just to have the "Hound whose scared of fire" when we can have "Hound whose face was pushed into the fire by his brother"?

Why in the world would you have any of those events be "told by someone" or not explained at all when you can directly show them?

But I don't think you have convinced everyone that the ToJ is so pivotal that it must be shown in S1.

Youre speaking only for yourself.

Flashbacks is the only way to show a lot of stuff from the books but I think it is more likely that a lot of that stuff just wouldn't make the transition to the screen.

So youre against flashbacks, meaning any past presented in the series, on the grounds that they represent every single detail of the past - which will then destroy the possibility of the series being made at all, right?

What a load of nonsense.

The history of the war, Lyanna, the tower, Catelyn and Littlefinger's past, etc. are all important facts that push the plot along in the present. You can either have them exposed in dialogue, or deal with them in the way the books did with flashbacks and dreams.

Agreed. Flashbacks are merely memories not some monsters.

And those should be presented.

"You killed him."

Flash to young Robert smashing Rhaegar with his hammer

- ". . . Only once"

"She loved Roses"

- Flash of bloodied hand dropping a fist-full of blue roses. "Promise me Ned"

The Hound gazing in fear as the Blackwater comes alive with green fire.

- Flash to him as a boy with his face being ground into flaming coals by his brother's enormous hand.

Nice. Short, simple and very effective.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

That short flashback would work if accompanied by a verbal explanation from Ned imo. Otherwise its too brief, and I wouldn't trust viewers who haven't read the books to understand whats going on.

[The SmilingKnight]

I was presuming that would be just one of the few short flashbacks Ned has about ToJ and Lyanna over time, as he did in the books. Every one building up to the "complete" memory/dream of the ToJ sequence.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Eh, thats too much reminiscent of Lost, lol.

Tough thing is, we don't even know for SURE how relevant these scenes are to the greater plot, though I assume GRRM will whisper a word or two to the producers.

[The SmilingKnight]

I guess you mean the Jon-Lyanna connection theory by that, since ive just spend a lot of my nerves explaining the obvious about other ways in which the whole Lyanna deal is relevant to a lot of the story besides that one particular strand.

By itself the ToJ scene doesnt give any answer to that problem, so even if you would film it there is no danger of it actually hinting at something that possibly wont be fulfilled later on.

There is nothing in ToJ scene saying Jon is the son so you cannot betray that later on if it turns out he isnt.

[Padraig]

Flashbacks are merely memories not some monsters.

Thank you tSK. Great arguments. :)

I will say that I am not against flashbacks. :P I have some concerns about how people think they will work though.

There are a lot of great scenes in GoT. We can go through them all individually and i'll say "yes, I want to see that". But we never get everything we want. And they have to make a coherent show out of a very complicated book. So first thing they have to do is focus on the present day.

[Breakspear]

I will say that I am not against flashbacks. :P I have some concerns about how people think they will work though.

Thats how I feel. Although there are a lot of people who will tell you that using a flashback in any sense is lazy exposition, and that is how it will look if they translate poorly to the screen.

Do them right or not at all is the sensible strategy.

[Dennai]

I got the feeling that flash-backs will be almost non-existant this fist season.

If we get any, it would be when Ned is either convalencing of his injuries after the Kings Landing ambush or despairing in the black cells.

Could the story benefit from flash-backs? Undoubtely. Could hurt it? It could also. Can the story be told without use them? Perfectly.

Before seeing the finished product, we can't really cry out about the mistake of including/ignoring flash-backs, or which one should/shouldn't be there.

[The SmilingKnight]

Could hurt it? It could also. Can the story be told without use them? Perfectly.

Explain how.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I'll be honest, in my first read-through I skimmed Ned's flashback scenes, missed all the Jon hints, and ignored quite a bit of Rhaegar/Robert backstory.

Obviously, I still enjoyed the series.

[Padraig]

Explain how.

Heh. Rather than speculating about what may or may not happen in future books, could you explain what would have to be substantially changed in aCoK, aSoS and aFfC because we didn't see the ToJ scene?

And yes, I still like the scene.

[Gertrude]

eh - I am sure that they will tell the story as they see best. I'm certain that I will disagree with some decisions, but ultimately I'm not in charge and I'm just glad someone saw the worth in tackling this. Flashbacks done well are great, done poorly are distracting. I am perfectly willing to wait and see how they portray it, then offer my opinions. I don't think ToJ is essential to see - I would love to see it as it has this almost mythical quality about it, but it's not essential. The promise is somewhat more important, but we haven't seen the pay off from that yet, so how important we don't know. I suspect it is very important, and it is a fun clue as to Jon's potential parentage, but we just don't know.

In my mind, the most critical thing people should understand about Robert's Rebellion is Jamie's part in it. It directly relates to his character development and how he and others see himself. Robert's motivations, while fascinating to us, is not really that relevant in the present. If all they portray him as is a powerful warrior king gone to seed, that will be enough. Sure, there is much more to it than that, but is it important in telling the story? I don't think so. Hardcore fans will be disappointed, of course, but this isn't being made for just us. Jon's potential parentage is also one of those things that is important to us fans, but unless it had a big payoff towards the end, we don't know if it's essential other than fleshing out Ned's honorable character (if R+L=J). I'm sure George will steer them right in including/omitting events and details.

[aimlessgun]

Explain how.

It could possibly be confusing to someone not familiar with the books. They might be trying to follow all the characters and present day politics and goings on, and Ned flashbacks to people they've never seen before might not go that well.

I don't think we can imagine what viewing this will be like for non-readers, so it's impossible to say. At least for me: I don't write for TV, I'm just some guy. If you're an accomplished TV writer I'll bow to your opinion.

[The SmilingKnight]

Heh. Rather than speculating about what may or may not happen in future books, could you explain what would have to be substantially changed in aCoK, aSoS and aFfC because we didn't see the ToJ scene?

And yes, I still like the scene.

Why would you change anything if there are no flashbacks? And substantially at that.

The point is that presenting a few crucial memories is the better option then not presenting them.

And since they all can be done rather cheaply and in short time, taking up only seconds in the series i dont see why you would avoid them and end up with a worse end product.

It could possibly be confusing to someone not familiar with the books. They might be trying to follow all the characters and present day politics and goings on, and Ned flashbacks to people they've never seen before might not go that well.

I don't think we can imagine what viewing this will be like for non-readers, so it's impossible to say. At least for me: I don't write for TV, I'm just some guy. If you're an accomplished TV writer I'll bow to your opinion.

Ah, so youre actually imagining there will be hundreds of flashbacks done in such a bad way that they will confuse the audience.

Why didnt you say so immediately?

And that last ditch "argument" of being or not an accomplished tv writer is nonsense too.

I guess you saw the similar one from Ran in the other thread?

If were judging things by that then none of us has anything to say and these forums should be deleted.

Plus - i really dont see that reality provides any proof in complete omniscience and infallibility of writers or directors, judging by loads of shitty series and movies out there, which would make them beyond any criticism.

etc.

Now, to prevent imaginations running wild again ill be clear.

There needs to be only several flashbacks that explain a few crucial events from the past because not having them will leave the audience confused and the story nonsensical, full of plot holes.

In no particular order:

Robert slaying Rhaegar on the Trident

Jaime killing Aerys (posibly a few short scenes that show how crazy Aerys was)

Mountain killing Aegon, Elia and Rhaennys

Mountain pushing Sandors face into the fire

Tower of Joy

Tysha`s rape

All of them would last mere seconds, up to half minute or so. Maybe only ToJ would take a whole minute.

Every one provides explanations of the events in the "present" and deepens the characters immensely.

And each is a memory. Nothing more.

If you dont have them then you have audience wandering who the hell are Targaryens, why did Robert start the rebellion, why does he hate Targaryens so much, why is Sandor afraid of fire and hates his brother so much, why Eddard dislikes Jaime and Lannisters, why the Mountain is one of the scariest people around, etc etc

Now, you could have someone just tell those moments like a story but all that does is break the first basic rule of "show dont tell" and leaves you with weaker end product.

Plus you loose the all important emotional impact that makes a world of difference.

For example, seeing the Mountain pushing Sandors face into the fire and holding him there cannot even be compared to Sandor just telling it to someone.

Or actually seeing him kill Aegon, Rhaennys and Elia as opposed someone just retelling it.

Without it, he is just some big guy with a sword we have seen a thousand times already.

Not to mention that retelling some of these events would take more screen time then showing them.

[aimlessgun]

Ah, so youre actually imagining there will be hundreds of flashbacks done in such a bad way that they will confuse the audience.

Why didnt you say so immediately?

And that last ditch "argument" of being or not an accomplished tv writer is nonsense too.

I guess you saw the similar one from Ran in the other thread?

If were judging things by that then none of us has anything to say and these forums should be deleted.

Plus - i really dont see that reality provides any proof in complete omniscience and infallibility of writers or directors, judging by loads of shitty series and movies out there, which would make them beyond any criticism.

etc.

So you're saying that I believe their writers/directors to be infallible, but also saying that I assume they will do flashback badly?

You asked a wide open question: Explain how flashbacks could possibly go badly. I gave you an example.

I threw in the 'tv writer' comment because I don't think a layperson would truly understand what it takes to correctly do it. I like your list of scenes, but you have to set them up properly for people to understand what is going on in them. But you're right, why bother having these forums if we worry about the fact that we're just speculating fans.

I also agree that for readers, the show would be unequivocally superior with extensive flashbacks. But I can't suddenly forget everything I know and try to analyze it from the perspective of a first-time viewer. How confused would someone be if they communicated your list of scenes in brief dialogue bits, for example?

In the first one, Robert v. Rhaegar, it's easy to mention in dialogue, but no matter which way you do it, they have to know more about who Rhaegar is from other sources. Rhaegar is almost ludicrously problematic now that I think about it <_< Such a major character who's been dead for years and has a very complex story.