(Book Spoiler) Where the Hell is Ghost?

[Bishop437]

This thread may contain spoilers for those of you who haven't read the books. But I wont go out of my way to post them. I am so happy with this series so far but I am starting to worry. Ghost has not been seen since the Dead Mother Direwolf sceen. And he hasn't yet even been mentioned by name. Can anyone explain the omission in a way that will make me feel better about this. I thought for sure in episode 3 Ghost would be present but again he seems to be missing. So many opportunnities for the wolf to make a grand entrance have come and gone. What gives? Please somebody help me figure out whats going on!

[Ran]

He was in the second episode -- he's glimpsed lying down in a shot establishing Benjon, Jon, and co. taking a break.

The dogs had a very short time for training, and their breed is not the easiest breed for training. It seems it proved difficult to use them as much as the producers wanted. Kit Harrington and the other actors have repeatedly been asked, and noted, that working with the dogs was really tough. Sean Bean claimed that Lady's death took 3 hours to film because the dog wouldn't keep still for awhile until they repeated it enough to get her used to it.

So ... yeah, they won't be seen as much as we might want, I think, but that's just the reality of the situation. The producers have suggested next year, they'll move to CG wolves.

[Bishop437]

This makes me sad... But I guess I can understand. It really is one of the most important aspects of the series as a whole. I really hope they can fix this moving forward. Thanks Ran. Thanks for ruining my life. ;)

[Spring Bass]

That's not surprising. Would it have been a significant cost increase to just use CGI wolves from the beginning? They might not have been able to use them as much, but they could make them do whatever they wanted.

In any case, I actually didn't notice their absence most of the time.

[NW Deserter]

That's not surprising. Would it have been a significant cost increase to just use CGI wolves from the beginning? They might not have been able to use them as much, but they could make them do whatever they wanted.

In any case, I actually didn't notice their absence most of the time.

The only direwolf I noticed missing was Ghost. Although, Grey Wind does make more appearances in the next few episodes, so I'll notice if he's not there. If they don't have him biting off the Greatjon's fingers, I'll be disappointed.

[Xenophon]

I also didn't notice the absence of the wolves. I hope they stick with the dog-actors as long as possible--CGI never looks as good as the real thing, and so far the visuals have been one of the strengths of the show.

How much do we really need to see them anyway? I know they were a major part of the books, but why can't they just be more in the background for the TV show? I'm assuming the hardest thing is filming scenes where the dogs have to interact with human actors. But how many of those do there need to be? A few with Grey Wind and Ghost, and maybe one or two with Bran, IIRC. Bran warging won't usually require the dogs to be in the same shot, and Ghost and Grey Wind can be assumed to be off hunting/sleeping most of the time.

[Lord of Starfall]

The trouble is that if viewers don't see them much they won't really come to associate the Stark kids with their wolves. They could have at least had Jon take Ghost up on the wall with him, and Summer could have been sitting in Bran's room. It almost doesn't matter what the wolves are doing as long as they're on camera every once in a while.

[ingsve]

Well, it also makes sense from a production standpoint not to have the wolfs in every single shot that features the kids. That would mean they would need to keep the handlers on set every single day almost and that would not be worth it if all you get is a shot of a wolf sitting next to someone. At least the wolfs are there for the shots where they are themselves involved in the action which we should be grateful for.

[Jem]

As I was walking to work this morning, the more I thought about it, the more it was really bothering me that we didn’t see much of the wolves. I KNOW that there have been problems with training the dogs to ‘act’, but it doesn’t require much acting to have, say, Ghost trotting along next to Jon or to have Summer curled up on the bed with Bran. The dogs don’t really need to DO anything, they just need to be there. And we don't even have to see them on screen for very long, just a few seconds here and there would do.

Plus, it was also disappointing not to see Mormont’s raven.

[The Anti-Targ]

Ghost and Summer are pivotal characters in the story. Shaggy Dog and Grey Wind not so much. All we need see of Grey Wind is his role in combat. All we need see of Shaggy Dog is his wildness.

As long as Ghost and Summer do what's important for them to do in the context of the over all story screen time isn't really a big deal. I think we need one or 2 shots of Jon and Ghost having a close bond before Ghost's first big scene.

[Eddard house stark]

Should have used CGI. It is the single worst decision the producers made. The lack of ghosts presence actually hurts the character development of jon. Also stop saying winter is coming every fourth scene. Winter is not in fact coming for a long time

[Xenophon]

How about we just say that direwolves are nocturnal. Problem solved. ;)

[Talleyrand]

Should have used CGI. It is the single worst decision the producers made. The lack of ghosts presence actually hurts the character development of jon. Also stop saying winter is coming every fourth scene. Winter is not in fact coming for a long time

No CGI wolves would cost quite a lot and would look terrible to have wondering around

[TheBerk]

I'm sorry, but I have read so many posts about the absence of Ghost from the series so far, other than when they find him. This is simply not true. Ghost was in episode 2. You can clearly see him in a long shot of Tyrion and Jon just before their conversation on the way to the Wall. His absence since then is simply due to the fact that he is:

1) not appearing in the scene before Donal Noye (Tyrion in the series) berates him, and

2) not needed in the scene at the top of the Wall where he talks to Tyrion.

His significance does not come until he finds the dead hand north of the wall.

[Songlian]

Ghost and Summer are pivotal characters in the story. Shaggy Dog and Grey Wind not so much. All we need see of Grey Wind is his role in combat.

For this season only, I could agree with you -- but still hope to see Grey Wind as much as possible. For the next, and hopefully the one after as well, I'd say Grey Wind becomes quite important.

I KNOW that there have been problems with training the dogs to 'act', but it doesn't require much acting to have, say, Ghost trotting along next to Jon or to have Summer curled up on the bed with Bran. The dogs don't really need to DO anything, they just need to be there. And we don't even have to see them on screen for very long, just a few seconds here and there would do.

This! Someone should have patted the producers on the back and tell them, "Psst! The direwolves are really important for the fans. Throw them a bone and shoot them chasing it." Or something equally effortless.

As for Mormont's raven, to be completely honest, I haven't even noticed that it's missing. But yeah, it should have been there as well.

[A Redeemed Hound]

That is my biggest complaint. No wolves really in the show. Like someone said, just have them there in the background or sitting somewhere so we can see them. They are a huge part of the books and the story. I hope the newer episodes show more of them. My one and only real complaint other than nobody saying anyone's name.

[Arya The Assassin]

I KNOW that there have been problems with training the dogs to ‘act’, but it doesn’t require much acting to have, say, Ghost trotting along next to Jon or to have Summer curled up on the bed with Bran. The dogs don’t really need to DO anything, they just need to be there.

It's very difficult to get animals -- even trained ones -- to do what you want them to do in front of a camera. It may seem very simple, but what you see onscreen in a 5 second shot might have taken hours to shoot.

It's been said that there are basically two things that directors really hate to direct: Children and animals. Although this is a bit exaggerated, there's a lot of truth to the fact that animals can be very difficult and costly to work with on movie/film sets.

Should have used CGI. It is the single worst decision the producers made.

CG direwolves can be very expensive for a TV show like this. Creating photorealistic wolves isn't the problem -- they can create virtually anything in the digital realm nowadays -- the problem is time and cost. That last 'mile' to photorealism can be very costly.

A compromise might be to create the direwolves digitally, but not try to strive for 100% photorealism: The wolves might not look and move in (a very) realistic manner, but the filmmakers will have full control over the wolves. It would still be quite expensive, though, and will probably cost more than using real dogs. So from an economical standpoint real dogs are probably the best solution, but from a creative standpoint CG wolves would give the filmmakers much more freedom and flexibility.

Consider the dragons for example: Here the filmmakers don't have any options but to use CG. It'll be interesting to see how they solve this 'problem': Perhaps their CG dragons will look much better than we would expect from a TV show with a relatively limited budget? ('limited' compared to big-budget feature films, not other TV shows. It may seem unfair to compare a TV-show with a big budget movie, but the CG-benchmark is set by other feature films, not TV shows)

I hope they stick with the dog-actors as long as possible--CGI never looks as good as the real thing, and so far the visuals have been one of the strengths of the show.

Never? I think you'd be surprised by how much CG there's onscreen nowadays, without people even knowing it :) CG can look as good as the real thing (organic creatures), especially when closeups aren't needed (but if you've seen what they've achieved with CG animals/creatures in movies such as Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Avatar or King Kong, it's hard to argue that CG can't be used for closeups as well). Sometimes as a filmmaker, you want the flexibility that CG has to offer. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, cost.

But consider these clips, for example:

CG Dogs by Cinesite

These dogs, although not entirely photorealistic (the last three were made by individuals/hobby animators, not big animation studios), would probably look good enough in long shots for most people in a TV audience (if someone hadn't told them they were CG, many people would probably not have noticed anyway). The filmmakers could use CG dogs for long shots (when the animal has to 'perform' or move in a specific way), and real dogs for closeups (closeups require less direction). We'll just have to wait and see.

[gumby]

True Blood didn't seem to have an issue using wolves in their last season...just saying.

[Xenophon]

Never? I think you'd be surprised by how much CG there's onscreen nowadays, without people even knowing it :) CG can look as good as the real thing (organic creatures), especially when closeups aren't needed (but if you've seen what they've achieved with CG animals/creatures in movies such as Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Avatar or King Kong, it's hard to argue that CG can't be used for closeups as well). Sometimes as a filmmaker, you want the flexibility that CG has to offer. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, cost.

Yeah, never was too extreme. But good CGI animals are very rare, and as you said, expensive. Avatar, for example, took years to make, cost a bloody fortune, and had the advantage of depicting imaginary animals whose motions aren't familiar. Yet even it didn't look great at times (those multi-legged horse-like things don't run in a realistic way).

On a TV show budget, I'd much rather have rarely-seen animal actors than non-realistic CGI wolves in every shot.

And, to play the devil's advocate, perhaps we're better off only seeing the wolves occasionally. It could distract from the main action if we saw them in every scene. For example, when Robb visits Bran, the focus should be on the brothers; having two wolves in the shot as well might take away from that.

[Spring Bass]

These dogs, although not entirely photorealistic (the last three were made by individuals/hobby animators, not big animation studios), would probably look good enough in long shots for most people in a TV audience (if someone hadn't told them they were CG, many people would probably not have noticed anyway). The filmmakers could use CG dogs for long shots (when the animal has to 'perform' or move in a specific way), and real dogs for closeups (closeups require less direction). We'll just have to wait and see.

Would the "Cinesite CG Dogs" and "Wolf Animation in Maya" have been significantly more expensive than using live animals? I'd actually be fine if they used the Cinesite-level of quality to do CGI wolves. They don't look entirely realistic, but they're good enough, and you could make the direwolves be as big as you want, while doing whatever you want.

I suspect they'll have to go to full CGI direwolves as time goes on. They'll simply be too big to use real dogs unless you do Lord of the Rings-style tricks.

In any case, I don't think it's a big issue to have the direwolves out of sight most of the time. Ghost is off hunting half the time in Jon's chapters anyways.

Yet even it didn't look great at times (those multi-legged horse-like things don't run in a realistic way).

Well, how do you make a fictional six-legged horse run more realistically?

It's the same issue with dragons, and particularly flying dragons. A creature that size (never mind a monster like Balerion the Black) would never fly anyways due to its size, mass, and density (the dragons in ASoIaF have bones with lots of iron incorporated).