(Book Spoiler) Where the Hell is Ghost?

[The Fenris Wolf]

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.

Seriously? You can see him "clearly" in a long shot? I watched that episode twice and didn't notice that until I read some posts on this board saying he was there. I had to go back and watch the scene again, *looking* for him, in order to see it.

The OP has a legitimate point. The wolves are just not there that much. I don't care why, and neither does your typical viewer. For crying out loud they've been using animal actors in movies since Lassie. I'm not saying it's easy, but let's not go the other route and say these guys are trying to invent cold fusion or something. There are lots of shows out there and lots of movies that use live action animals, CGI, and a mixture of both.

The problem with their current approach is that when something does happen (like Ghost threatening that guy from the Night's Watch), your non-fan will look at it and say wtf. You don't see or even hear anything about the wolf forever and then all of a sudden it pops up. If I hadn't read the books I wouldn't even know his name.

[Humble Asskicker]

It's not a big deal unless you make it a big deal (although I know people here love to do that over small things). How has the brief appearance of Ghost in any way affected the narrative or changed major plot points? It hasn't.

The only complaint the absence seems to merit are from the uber-obsessive types who are utterly infatuated with seeing direwolves as frequently as they are in the books, or the super-obsessive who feel that this in some way affects the continuity (it hasn't).

And then you have my favorite complaint: the non-readers will be confused! It's the quick resort to anyone who has a grudge about a particular detail in the series - they magnanimously extend their protective concern on those poor dumb non-readers who just wouldn't get it. And even when all signs indicate that the non-readers seem far more welcoming of the series than hardcore book fans, the obsessive types still ride this point. It's so cute.

[The Anti-Targ]

Seriously? You can see him "clearly" in a long shot? I watched that episode twice and didn't notice that until I read some posts on this board saying he was there. I had to go back and watch the scene again, *looking* for him, in order to see it.

The OP has a legitimate point. The wolves are just not there that much. I don't care why, and neither does your typical viewer. For crying out loud they've been using animal actors in movies since Lassie. I'm not saying it's easy, but let's not go the other route and say these guys are trying to invent cold fusion or something. There are lots of shows out there and lots of movies that use live action animals, CGI, and a mixture of both.

The problem with their current approach is that when something does happen (like Ghost threatening that guy from the Night's Watch), your non-fan will look at it and say wtf. You don't see or even hear anything about the wolf forever and then all of a sudden it pops up. If I hadn't read the books I wouldn't even know his name.

I noticed Ghost in the long shot on my second viewing, and that was without it being pointed out to me. Though it was after I had read complaints about the absence of Ghost, so I was looking for him.

Ghost has been in Ep1, 2 and 4. What more do you want? Grey Wind was MIA after Ep1 until Ep4.

The fact that Jon so obviously gets his own direwolf pup in Ep.1 means there's really no audience disjoint with his active presence only coming in at Ep.4. Ep.2 established that Ghost went with Jon to the Wall, and that's enough of a connection. For those who missed the long shot, it's enough to assume that Ghost would go with Jon, because Lady and Nymeria went South with the girls.

[Asha—Not Yara!]

My brother the non-book reader wasn't particularly confused with Ghost's appearance in this episode. He didn't notice him in the brief shot of that previous episode though, so he did sound pleasantly surprised and said, "Oh I guess he brought his wolf with him after all". He didn't seem to give much thought to after that except to say how cool Ghost looked.

[The Fenris Wolf]

It's not a big deal unless you make it a big deal.

Can't this be said about everything?

I'm not an uber-obsessive type. I read the books a couple of times, years ago when they first came out. I've been looking forward to the series and watch them when they come out. I don't care how they pronounce characters' names, if they get their ages exactly right, or if one person speaks dialogue that was spoken by someone else in the book. They can make all the changes to the story that they want to, just keep it consistent (or not, whatever, then I can bitch about it).

I just hate the fan-boy panting over this shit. Every mistake the show makes there are always plenty of folks on this forum stumbling over each other to make excuses. It's not a bad show by any measure. I think it's an outstanding show. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have faults.

[Ded As Ned]

For crying out loud they've been using animal actors in movies since Lassie. I'm not saying it's easy, but let's not go the other route and say these guys are trying to invent cold fusion or something. There are lots of shows out there and lots of movies that use live action animals, CGI, and a mixture of both.

The problem with their current approach is that when something does happen (like Ghost threatening that guy from the Night's Watch), your non-fan will look at it and say wtf. You don't see or even hear anything about the wolf forever and then all of a sudden it pops up. If I hadn't read the books I wouldn't even know his name.

You probably shouldn't complain about how easy something is if you know nothing of what you speak. Training a collie, golden retriever, lab, etc. and training Husky breeds can be like the difference between training horses vs. racoons... Besides the point, "your typical viewer" only knows what they see on the show (most HBO subscribers have not read the books ya know), and a couple of my friends (who haven't read the books but love the show) both really love the Direwolves and think they are portrayed wonderfully... for 2 cents worth. I'm getting really tired of all of the "the show is not word-for-word like the book" bitching and moaning... "that rock was on the other side of the road in that scene! Death to HBO!"... Anyway, back to the book forum. Thought I would check out what fans-who-haven't-read-the-books were thinking, but alas they haven't found the board yet... Also, you don't need to know Ghost's name to know he's Jon's direwolf...

[Ded As Ned]

Can't this be said about everything?

I'm not an uber-obsessive type. I read the books a couple of times, years ago when they first came out. I've been looking forward to the series and watch them when they come out. I don't care how they pronounce characters' names, if they get their ages exactly right, or if one person speaks dialogue that was spoken by someone else in the book. They can make all the changes to the story that they want to, just keep it consistent (or not, whatever, then I can bitch about it).

I just hate the fan-boy panting over this shit. Every mistake the show makes there are always plenty of folks on this forum stumbling over each other to make excuses. It's not a bad show by any measure. I think it's an outstanding show. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have faults.

Indeed, well said.

[The Fenris Wolf]

You probably shouldn't complain about how easy something is if you know nothing of what you speak. Training a collie, golden retriever, lab, etc. and training Husky breeds can be like the difference between training horses vs. racoons.

Meh, I don't really care about this. If something is really difficult, either do it well or just don't do it at all. I don't know how they could get around this but then again I'm not paid a six-figure salary to work in Hollywood.

It will also be difficult for them to show the dragons without them looking cheesy. But if we see Dany walking around with a stuffed animal made up to look like a dragon, you'll see people on this forum crying, "B-b-but, CGI is expensive! Dragons aren't realistic anyways!" If we see a recreation of a battle scene, and the show only has four or five dudes riding around on horses shouting orders into the smoke, you'll hear people on these forums defending how difficult it is to film a medieval battle scene.

I totally believe that it is really difficult to show wolves on screen doing something that the director wants them to do. I also believe that it is difficult to recreate ancient Rome and make it look realistic, but they managed to do it flawlessly for several seasons on Rome.

Just my .02, everybody's got theirs.

[Humble Asskicker]

Can't this be said about everything?

I'm not an uber-obsessive type. I read the books a couple of times, years ago when they first came out. I've been looking forward to the series and watch them when they come out. I don't care how they pronounce characters' names, if they get their ages exactly right, or if one person speaks dialogue that was spoken by someone else in the book. They can make all the changes to the story that they want to, just keep it consistent (or not, whatever, then I can bitch about it).

I just hate the fan-boy panting over this shit. Every mistake the show makes there are always plenty of folks on this forum stumbling over each other to make excuses. It's not a bad show by any measure. I think it's an outstanding show. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have faults.

On this issue, you are an uber-obsessive geek. You are fretting over establishing shots that aren't actually needed. Pivotal scenes where the direwolves were required to be present in fact had the direwolves present. When they were discovered, during the assassination attempt of Bran, the savaging of Joff and murder of Lady, and then Ghost intimidating that one dude. Every time their presence was important to the plot, the direwolves did their part.

As for establishing that the direwolves are actually around, well, you know they are, and in GoT neophyte forums and threads there haven't been any apparent confusion, so the complaint that the direwolves haven't been effectively established is erroneous.

When the foundation of your argument is so shaky, the argument itself becomes vulnerable to accusations of being nit-picky...because, well, it clearly is.

If you want to strike back and announce that the critics of your laughable criticism must perforce be panting fan boys, well, go for it. It doesn't strengthen your already weak-ass argument any. It makes you seem petty, sure, but you already achieved that mark with your initial criticism, so whatever.

I do agree that there is some legitimate criticisms that can be made against the show. A criticism I could support would be, say, how completely cheesy that Dothraki wedding was. The aesthetic did affect the show some, with frolicking Dothraki warriors fighting over who gets to dry hump the dancing women.

[The Fenris Wolf]

On this issue, you are an uber-obsessive geek. You are fretting over establishing shots that aren't actually needed. Pivotal scenes where the direwolves were required to be present in fact had the direwolves present. When they were discovered, during the assassination attempt of Bran, the savaging of Joff and murder of Lady, and then Ghost intimidating that one dude. Every time their presence was important to the plot, the direwolves did their part.

As for establishing that the direwolves are actually around, well, you know they are, and in GoT neophyte forums and threads there haven't been any apparent confusion, so the complaint that the direwolves haven't been effectively established is erroneous.

When the foundation of your argument is so shaky, the argument itself becomes vulnerable to accusations of being nit-picky...because, well, it clearly is.

If you want to strike back and announce that the critics of your laughable criticism must perforce be panting fan boys, well, go for it. It doesn't strengthen your already weak-ass argument any. It makes you seem petty, sure, but you already achieved that mark with your initial criticism, so whatever.

I do agree that there is some legitimate criticisms that can be made against the show. A criticism I could support would be, say, how completely cheesy that Dothraki wedding was. The aesthetic did affect the show some, with frolicking Dothraki warriors fighting over who gets to dry hump the dancing women.

Riiight...says the guy with nearly 1,700 posts on a fansite for a fantasy book / TV series. I guess on some level its particularly insulting to be called a geek by someone who probably lives in his mother's basement. On another level, not so much. That's ok though big guy, just keep slinging it around.

I do find it interesting that my own particular criticism you quickly dismiss as nitpicking, and then in the same post mention your own particular nitpick. One that I should point out, probably unnecessarily but I'll do so anyways, has been discussed ad nauseam on these boards and is thus safe for even a GRRM water-carrier to point out. These are naturally the only type of criticism that your kind feels comfortable bringing up, because if there is anything that a fanboy hates more than hearing criticism of their favorite author, it is to run afoul of their fellow fanboys.

Whatever...I've wasted enough time on this thread.

[Humble Asskicker]

Riiight...says the guy with nearly 1,700 posts on a fansite for a fantasy book / TV series. I guess on some level its particularly insulting to be called a geek by someone who probably lives in his mother's basement. On another level, not so much. That's ok though big guy, just keep slinging it around.

I do find it interesting that my own particular criticism you quickly dismiss as nitpicking, and then in the same post mention your own particular nitpick. One that I should point out, probably unnecessarily but I'll do so anyways, has been discussed ad nauseam on these boards and is thus safe for even a GRRM water-carrier to point out. These are naturally the only type of criticism that your kind feels comfortable bringing up, because if there is anything that a fanboy hates more than hearing criticism of their favorite author, it is to run afoul of their fellow fanboys.

So your response is...more ad hominem and outrage that I would have the AUDACITY to suggest a criticism that most people would actually agree with? I guess it wasn't maverick enough for you then? Not enough people laughing it down as silly nit-pickiness for your comfort? Or is your problem that one could issue actual explicable reasons why the Dothraki wedding was a faux pas, instead of just gesticulating wildly and reiterating the demonstrably incorrect point that the poor dumb non-readers JUST WON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

Whatever...I've wasted enough time on this thread.

Are you sure? Your lame nitpick has been kicked down into the mud and trodden upon. Don't you feel honor-bound to defend it to the last breath? It would be tragic if the fount of amusement you provide ends here.

[Balefont]

Meh, I don't really care about this. If something is really difficult, either do it well or just don't do it at all. I don't know how they could get around this but then again I'm not paid a six-figure salary to work in Hollywood.

It will also be difficult for them to show the dragons without them looking cheesy. But if we see Dany walking around with a stuffed animal made up to look like a dragon, you'll see people on this forum crying, "B-b-but, CGI is expensive! Dragons aren't realistic anyways!" If we see a recreation of a battle scene, and the show only has four or five dudes riding around on horses shouting orders into the smoke, you'll hear people on these forums defending how difficult it is to film a medieval battle scene.

I totally believe that it is really difficult to show wolves on screen doing something that the director wants them to do. I also believe that it is difficult to recreate ancient Rome and make it look realistic, but they managed to do it flawlessly for several seasons on Rome.

Just my .02, everybody's got theirs.

There's a world of difference between creating a realistic recreation of Rome and getting an animal to do just the right thing at just the right moment.

And how could they have "done it right or not do it at all"? I believe the wolves would have been cut if they weren't an important enough aspect of the story to at least give them some screen time. They are somewhat important at this time so that's why HBO put them in there as much as was feasible and relative to events upon which the wolves have an impact. At the same time, the wolves have the potential to "steal the show" so to speak if given too much screen time. And I think the Stark children characters would suffer from having to share the stage so much. People will see the wolves more than they "see" the Starks.

[Balefont]

Riiight...says the guy with nearly 1,700 posts on a fansite for a fantasy book / TV series. I guess on some level its particularly insulting to be called a geek by someone who probably lives in his mother's basement.

FTR, many, if not most, of us have accumulated much of our post counts NOT discussing the books or show.

[Arya The Assassin]

I read an interview with D&D the other day, and they said that they were considering using both CG and real dogs for the direwolves in season two (just like we speculated), because full-grown direwolves are supposed to be very big. I don't remember the link to the article, but I'll post it here if I find it.

EDIT: Typo.

[Arya The Assassin]

No wonder they had a bit of trouble with the dogs on the set (emphasis added):

While the producers initially wanted to use actual wolves, wild animals are hard to control on sets, and the animals had to work closely with child actors. Instead, head animal trainer Jim Warren turned to the Northern Inuit, a dog breed native to Great Britain that closely resembles wolves. But the animals cast here were not professional actors, said Warren, who had about 12 weeks to train them.

"All of the dogs we received were from rescues and some from private parties that felt that they couldn't deal with the dogs anymore, because they were rambunctious big dogs," said Warren. "They'd never been on set before [and] we had a huge amount of work to do to get them from 'See Spot run to the backyard' to make them look like they did for the show."

Source:

Game of Thrones: 10 Secrets About HBO's Adaptation

[Lythana]

You don't need to be obssessive to point out that the wolves get a far too little screentime. They are an essential aspect in the books, they are guardians of the Stark children, they are not just a cool but unimportant decoration. In the last episode, when Bran was attacked, where was the wolf? Why didn't Ghost accompany Jon on his travel north? Why don't we ever see them trotting along, lying on the floor, being just present? It shouldn't be the top stuff in animal training to let them do this.

It's important for the viewers to get an idea how important the wolves are. You won't get that if you scarcely show them or if they simply pop up when it can't be avoided.

I enjoy the series very much, but the handling of the wolves is disappointing.