Discussing the creative approach to adapting GOT

[Sancho]

Hello everyone

It seems from reading both reviews and forums that the feedback to HBO's Game of Thrones is overwhelmingly positive. Most fans seem very happy with the way the book was adapted, and I seem to be in the minority of those that are somewhat disappointed. Now don't get me wrong, I am still enjoying the show, but can't help bu see it as a missed opportunity. Here is why.

There are two types of approaches to a story: a plot driven approach and a character driven approach. Plot driven means that most of the enjoyment comes from the anticipation and surprise of what will happen next in the narrative. Character driven works tend to explore deeper meanings about humanity and the human condition trough subtle character evolution and interaction. Usually, all works have a bit of both, but tend to be on one end of the spectrum or the other. In TV, a show like Mad Men is mostly character driven. Very little action happens outside of the character interactions. Breaking Bad, Sporanos and Deadwood are similarly character driven but also include more prominent plotting. When a TV show can combine good plotting with great character driven drama, that is the recipe for greatness. A Song of Ice and Fire provided a great opportunity for just such a show due to its deep and complex characters. In fact that is the reason most of us loved the books in the first place. Imagine a show where instead of seeing just two jousting matches, you had a whole episode just centered around the Hand's Tourney, with all the various participants squaring off as a backdrop for developing both plot and characters. Imagine a show where the character's motivations and personalities are slowly explored and unveiled trough subtle dialogue. Imagine a show where we meet characters gradually, and we slowly get to know them and care for them. And all of this with the backdrop of the magic and mythology of Westeros. How awesome would that be? How much more immersive would the atmosphere be, and how much more impactful would the plot twists become? Yes, it would take more than one season to cover a book. And yes, it might take more than a decade to complete the series. But as a friend of mine said: "what's the rush?" People that get attached to the characters will watch it season after season if the quality is there, and the plotting of GRRM's books is certainly good enough to keep the viewers on the edge of their seats for years. And in the long run, due to the economies of scale the production of the show would get cheaper and cheaper the longer the show runs. Finally, there is no guarantee a show will last in any case, so why not try for greatness?

Instead, the approach taken by the show's producers is purely plot driven. Yes there are character development scenes, some of which are great, but most character motivations are exposed to us in order to advance plot. If you break the show down, that vast majority of scenes are there for exposition or plot advancement. As a result, the show's main purpose is to advance the story explicitly, instead trough characterization. This is why the show feels like: "this happened, then that happened, and then that happened". In short, if I use a sci-fi comparison, they have taken the Star Gate approach instead of the Battlestar Galactica approach.

What do you guys think? Would you have preferred a different approach? How would you have adapted the books?

[Hyper]

You seem to be setting up a false choice between plot driven and character driven. GOT is neither. And both. And it is a different medium, with different expectations and economic realities from the books.

While you call the show plot driven (which it is), it also delves much deeper into some characters than the books have at this point. (Robert, Loras, etc...) The difference if of course that the attention to characters is spread over more than just the POV characters from the book.

Do you want to prove you can do it better? Then by all means, try writing a television episode screenplay if you want. I'd be interesting in seeing what you would come up with. And ADAPT it, don't just copy the novel word for word.

[Sancho]

You seem to be setting up a false choice between plot driven and character driven. GOT is neither. And both. And it is a different medium, with different expectations and economic realities from the books.

While you call the show plot driven (which it is), it also delves much deeper into some characters than the books have at this point. (Robert, Loras, etc...) The difference if of course that the attention to characters is spread over more than just the POV characters from the book.

Do you want to prove you can do it better? Then by all means, try writing a television episode screenplay if you want. I'd be interesting in seeing what you would come up with. And ADAPT it, don't just copy the novel word for word.

I am not setting up a false choice. As I said, the source material has great potential for both plot and character development. However, when selecting a the way to tell a story, the angle chosen tends to emphasize either one or the other. The choice by the show's creators has clearly been made for plot advancement over character development. And that's not to say that there is no character development at all. In fact, the best scene in last week's episode was the Robert-Cersei conversation. Unfortunately, it is not these scenes that form the backbone of the show.

As for proving that I can do it better, I fail to understand why any critique is met with this catch-all argument. If I can't paint or draw, does that mean that I am unable to contrast and judge the difference between my brother's doodles and a Rembrandt? After all, both are better at it than I am, and I certainly can't doodle as well as my brother. A capacity for critical appreciation of a work is not directly proportional to one's own ability or skill and as a lover of cinema, I personally prefer to appreciate a work critically. I am however more than open for debate on the why of my opinions.

[howland_reed]

I am not setting up a false choice. As I said, the source material has great potential for both plot and character development. However, when selecting a the way to tell a story, the angle chosen tends to emphasize either one or the other. The choice by the show's creators has clearly been made for plot advancement over character development. And that's not to say that there is no character development at all. In fact, the best scene in last week's episode was the Robert-Cersei conversation. Unfortunately, it is not these scenes that form the backbone of the show.

As for proving that I can do it better, I fail to understand why any critique is met with this catch-all argument. If I can't paint or draw, does that mean that I am unable to contrast and judge the difference between my brother's doodles and a Rembrandt? After all, both are better at it than I am, and I certainly can't doodle as well as my brother. A capacity for critical appreciation of a work is not directly proportional to one's own ability or skill and as a lover of cinema, I personally prefer to appreciate a work critically. I am however more than open for debate on the why of my opinions.

It's one thing to critique a show, book, or piece of art based on simply whether it was good or bad. In the end, it's all a matter of personal tastes.

It's a whole 'nother matter to make declarations of how the series could/would've been better. In that case, I'd expect some knowledge/experience in the craft from the critic.

I'm no professional chef, but I'm certainly entitled to make critiques on food prepared by one. But it'd be very arrogant to start making assumptions on what the chef should've done different if I know jacksquat about cooking.

[Sancho]

It's one thing to critique a show, book, or piece of art based on simply whether it was good or bad. In the end, it's all a matter of personal tastes.

It's a whole 'nother matter to make declarations of how the series could/would've been better. In that case, I'd expect some knowledge/experience in the craft from the critic.

I'm no professional chef, but I'm certainly entitled to make critiques on food prepared by one. But it'd be very arrogant to start making assumptions on what the chef should've done different if I know jacksquat about cooking.

Critiquing a work by definition implies that you would do some things differently. Just liking or disliking something isn't critiquing it, it is expressing a feeling that the work evoked (E.g. "I found it boring"). Critiquing something deals with "WHY I liked or disliked it" and implies dissecting it according to certain standards. If you say that a pacing of an episode is off, you are by definition saying that you would've paced (shot or edited) it differently. If you are saying that the music is intrusive, it means that you would've scored it differently. If you say the writing is bad, you are saying that you would've written it differently. That's what making a critical judgment is.

As for critiquing food, most food critics are not chefs. They are professional food critics. Most art critics aren't artists, they are professional art critics. In short, you don't need to be a working artist to critique art, you just need to know enough about it. While I am no Stanley Kubrick, I have been a cinema enthusiast for years and think that I have expressed some knowledge of the subject through my post and will be happy to elaborate. Anyone can agree or disagree with the reasons given by a critic for either liking or disliking a work, which is why I have started this topic. I would like to hear WHY you disagree with me, instead of being told I should shut up because I "know jacksquat".

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Imagine a show where instead of seeing just two jousting matches, you had a whole episode just centered around the Hand's Tourney, with all the various participants squaring off as a backdrop for developing both plot and characters. Imagine a show where the character's motivations and personalities are slowly explored and unveiled trough subtle dialogue. Imagine a show where we meet characters gradually, and we slowly get to know them and care for them. And all of this with the backdrop of the magic and mythology of Westeros. How awesome would that be? How much more immersive would the atmosphere be, and how much more impactful would the plot twists become?

Unfortunately plotting it the way you have described would result in a sho0w that was slooooooow and booooring. As much as I love the characterization (especially the added stuff in the TV series), take a look at some of the reviews, particularly of episodes 3-4. They are described variously as "plodding" "weak" "exposition-fests" etc. Trying to expand the material even more would lead to much much more people sittinga round talking (which is most of what happens in aSoIaF, despite people expecting action from the fantasy setting).

[Sancho]

Unfortunately plotting it the way you have described would result in a sho0w that was slooooooow and booooring. As much as I love the characterization (especially the added stuff in the TV series), take a look at some of the reviews, particularly of episodes 3-4. They are described variously as "plodding" "weak" "exposition-fests" etc. Trying to expand the material even more would lead to much much more people sittinga round talking (which is most of what happens in aSoIaF, despite people expecting action from the fantasy setting).

Thanks for the reply. I agree that there would be danger in losing a certain portion of the audience with a slower pace. But there is clearly a market for character driven drama, as shown by the success of Mad Men and Breaking Bad. In such shows, the challenge is always to create interest trough gripping yet revealing dialogue, but when successful it can really hold your attention. I actually thought episode 3 was the worst one because it was not about character development but about backstory exposition (not to mention the awkward editing). Episode 4 was also exposition heavy, but was better paced and actually had some good character development scenes so I liked it much better. But I would argue that a slower pacing with more emphasis on character development would result in less, not more exposition, as it could be integrated more gradually and thus more seamlessly. It is possible that the approach taken is a decision made by the network execs in terms of reaching a specific market segment, and people like myself are just not part of it.

[howland_reed]

Critiquing a work by definition implies that you would do some things differently. Just liking or disliking something isn't critiquing it, it is expressing a feeling that the work evoked (E.g. "I found it boring"). Critiquing something deals with "WHY I liked or disliked it" and implies dissecting it according to certain standards. If you say that a pacing of an episode is off, you are by definition saying that you would've paced (shot or edited) it differently. If you are saying that the music is intrusive, it means that you would've scored it differently. If you say the writing is bad, you are saying that you would've written it differently. That's what making a critical judgment is.

As for critiquing food, most food critics are not chefs. They are professional food critics. Most art critics aren't artists, they are professional art critics. In short, you don't need to be a working artist to critique art, you just need to know enough about it. While I am no Stanley Kubrick, I have been a cinema enthusiast for years and think that I have expressed some knowledge of the subject through my post and will be happy to elaborate. Anyone can agree or disagree with the reasons given by a critic for either liking or disliking a work, which is why I have started this topic. I would like to hear WHY you disagree with me, instead of being told I should shut up because I "know jacksquat".

Sorry if I came off rude in my post, but it was mostly in response to your OP, which I found arrogant. You come across as if your approach would have definitively been an improvement on the show, but in the end, you're just expressing an opinion like the rest of us.

What's the point of expressing why I disagree with you? I simply disagree. I feel the producers of the show achieved a great balance in plot advancement and character development, and any further emphasis on the latter may have likely bogged down the pace with more needless exposition. That's just my opinion, and likewise, you're entitled to yours.

And don't really want to delve into a debate on the definition of "critiquing," but even if you're dissecting certain details of a show -- such as the pacing, the music, or the cinematography -- in the end, you're still just hitting a "Like" or "Dislike" button and expressing an opinion. One person may hate the score, while another finds it captivating. Neither is right.

But for example, if someone wants to make a critique that the fight scenes were sloppily executed or choreographed, sure they're entitled to their opinion, but I'd also take them more seriously if they had a background or experience in sword-fighting themselves, as some here have indeed expressed to validate their opinion. Likewise, if you're going to make sweeping notions that the show failed at developing characters and overly focused on the plot, and would be better served if the pace was slowed down considerably, I'd take your opinion more seriously if you had a background in teleplay writing or film production, cause in my opinion, I don't see how those changes would do a good job of holding a viewer's interest.

edit - BTW, I'm a big fan of Mad Men and Breaking Bad, and I can understand where you're coming from and how you wish they'd spend more screen time solely on developing the characters. I just don't think it's economical for this series, considering the unwieldly large cast. If they spend too much time on character development, in a cast of 50, then they may lose viewers. ATM though, I feel they've got a great balance between characters/plot.

[lifefullofwords]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that there would be danger in losing a certain portion of the audience with a slower pace. But there is clearly a market for character driven drama, as shown by the success of Mad Men and Breaking Bad. In such shows, the challenge is always to create interest trough gripping yet revealing dialogue, but when successful it can really hold your attention. I actually thought episode 3 was the worst one because it was not about character development but about backstory exposition (not to mention the awkward editing). Episode 4 was also exposition heavy, but was better paced and actually had some good character development scenes so I liked it much better. But I would argue that a slower pacing with more emphasis on character development would result in less, not more exposition, as it could be integrated more gradually and thus more seamlessly. It is possible that the approach taken is a decision made by the network execs in terms of reaching a specific market segment, and people like myself are just not part of it.

I don't know, I think if you're the kind of person that watches Mad Men and Breaking Bad then you're definitely the viewer HBO is attempting to cater to. Although I suppose HBO's shows are generally more action-oriented than AMC's, they are still very interested in building character as a rule.

I also love Mad Men and other character-driven shows and would like to see GoT achieve that kind of success in developing in its own characters. And I have thought a lot about the various problems the show does have, despite a number of strengths, and I agree with some of your criticisms. However, I do think they are trying to build character. That's what that long scene with Robert and Jamie and Barristan Selmy in the third episode was about (besides exposition), introducing you to Selmy and building Jaime's and, to a greater extent, Robert's character. TV critics frequently refer to that scene when talking about Robert so I think that was a defining moment for viewers who have not read the novels. They have also put quite a bit of work into building other characters - Arya, Jon, and Dani, for example. That said, GoT's characters are not nearly as fascinating or finely nuanced as those on the best dramas. But I do think they are trying to write interesting and well-developed characters, and with some success.

I think there are also a number of problems with trying to pace the show slower. First of all, IMO episodes 1-4 have serious pacing problems and really plodded along at times. Hard to think how going through the books slower would have helped that. Two, usually shows like this get 6-7 seasons if they are lucky. ASoIaF is so massive that if they can't get through AGoT in the first season they will never finish. Three, most character-driven shows have settings in which a viewer would not expect action/violence, unlike GoT with its medieval fantasy setting. ASoIaF and GoT are both already very talky given their genre - which is great, but you do have to satisfy viewer's expectations at some point. It's not like The Sopranos was never suspenseful/violent. It just also did a superlative job building character, and so far GoT merely does a good job. But give it time, they are only halfway through the first season and seem to be finding their footing. I thought episode 5 was fabulous, a really great hour of television. I actually think she show works better when there is a bit of action mixed in with all the talking.

[SerArthurHeath]

Maybe if they started with an infinitely bigger budget, a guarantee of success and a different target group they could do it your way, which sounds like it would take 2 seasons per book. As it is, that would be impossible. I think the characterisation has been grand, at least as good as it was in the first book which I didn't think was a great character book at all on my first read (I actively disliked it and thought that whilst the characters were novel they were unsubtle and boring. I have since changed my view). I feel you are not being in any way realistic

[SerArthurHeath]

Sorry my initial reply was needlessly spiky/rude. What I would do better to say is that further slowing the show's pace early in the first season when the scene had to be set and characters introduced never mind elaborated, then almost nothing would have happened plotwise in the first half of the season. Then it wouldn't matter how good or interesting the latter part would be because people would have gotten bored. Also in a first season one has a far smaller budget than seasons after some commercial success has been attained so I doubt they could afford to extend the story with no guarantee of even completing the first book at that rate. As it is, the story has been set moving at last. Most important players have been introduced and well established. The scene is reasonably well set and explained. Now and early season 2 is the time to add to character development, now that ratings are good and people are attached to the show and the characters and they don't need to learn 5 more each week. I would do some things differently, but I cannot think of one character that was much better developed in the book by this point than in the show. And I can think of at least 2 if not more that are much better if differently developed in the show than in the book. Most of the book's characterisation happens later on (in later books IMO) so I don't think the issue with the show is undercharacterisation.

[Sancho]

Sorry if I came off rude in my post, but it was mostly in response to your OP, which I found arrogant. You come across as if your approach would have definitively been an improvement on the show, but in the end, you're just expressing an opinion like the rest of us.

What's the point of expressing why I disagree with you? I simply disagree. I feel the producers of the show achieved a great balance in plot advancement and character development, and any further emphasis on the latter may have likely bogged down the pace with more needless exposition. That's just my opinion, and likewise, you're entitled to yours.

And don't really want to delve into a debate on the definition of "critiquing," but even if you're dissecting certain details of a show -- such as the pacing, the music, or the cinematography -- in the end, you're still just hitting a "Like" or "Dislike" button and expressing an opinion. One person may hate the score, while another finds it captivating. Neither is right.

But for example, if someone wants to make a critique that the fight scenes were sloppily executed or choreographed, sure they're entitled to their opinion, but I'd also take them more seriously if they had a background or experience in sword-fighting themselves, as some here have indeed expressed to validate their opinion. Likewise, if you're going to make sweeping notions that the show failed at developing characters and overly focused on the plot, and would be better served if the pace was slowed down considerably, I'd take your opinion more seriously if you had a background in teleplay writing or film production, cause in my opinion, I don't see how those changes would do a good job of holding a viewer's interest.

edit - BTW, I'm a big fan of Mad Men and Breaking Bad, and I can understand where you're coming from and how you wish they'd spend more screen time solely on developing the characters. I just don't think it's economical for this series, considering the unwieldly large cast. If they spend too much time on character development, in a cast of 50, then they may lose viewers. ATM though, I feel they've got a great balance between characters/plot.

No worries. No offense taken. My intention was not to be arrogant either, but to elaborate on my opinion of the show and see how others feel about it.

The reason as to why one should express why he/she disagrees on a subject is that otherwise there is simply no discussion. The exchange would begin and end with "I like it and you don't". I personally enjoy discussion because it gives me an insight into how others view the show. It has happened in the past that other people's knowledge and insight have succeeded in changing my opinion of a work. Plus, I just plainly enjoy the process of dissecting and critiquing. But to each his own.

While I agree that a person's experience may add weight to their opinion (particularly when I need direction because I myself know very little about a subject), in the end arguments should stand or fall based on their strength and not on their origin. Granted, in art, an opinion is hard to argue conclusively, but I don't believe in complete relativism either so I do think that there is room for argumentation.

It is true that with a huge cast, characterization becomes more of a challenge. Maybe they considered taking that route, and made a bottom line decision that such an approach is not viable. But, I believe that it could have worked given a slower pace and a very good writing team. It certainly was NOT possible with the pace of 10 episodes per book. It seems to me that the creative team was simply too constrained with that particular decision, which itself may or may not come from the studio execs (and thus be out of the creative's control). Be that as it may, I would've taken another approach. Others may disagree.

[Sancho]

I don't know, I think if you're the kind of person that watches Mad Men and Breaking Bad then you're definitely the viewer HBO is attempting to cater to. Although I suppose HBO's shows are generally more action-oriented than AMC's, they are still very interested in building character as a rule.

I also love Mad Men and other character-driven shows and would like to see GoT achieve that kind of success in developing in its own characters. And I have thought a lot about the various problems the show does have, despite a number of strengths, and I agree with some of your criticisms. However, I do think they are trying to build character. That's what that long scene with Robert and Jamie and Barristan Selmy in the third episode was about (besides exposition), introducing you to Selmy and building Jaime's and, to a greater extent, Robert's character. TV critics frequently refer to that scene when talking about Robert so I think that was a defining moment for viewers who have not read the novels. They have also put quite a bit of work into building other characters - Arya, Jon, and Dani, for example. That said, GoT's characters are not nearly as fascinating or finely nuanced as those on the best dramas. But I do think they are trying to write interesting and well-developed characters, and with some success.

I think there are also a number of problems with trying to pace the show slower. First of all, IMO episodes 1-4 have serious pacing problems and really plodded along at times. Hard to think how going through the books slower would have helped that. Two, usually shows like this get 6-7 seasons if they are lucky. ASoIaF is so massive that if they can't get through AGoT in the first season they will never finish. Three, most character-driven shows have settings in which a viewer would not expect action/violence, unlike GoT with its medieval fantasy setting. ASoIaF and GoT are both already very talky given their genre - which is great, but you do have to satisfy viewer's expectations at some point. It's not like The Sopranos was never suspenseful/violent. It just also did a superlative job building character, and so far GoT merely does a good job. But give it time, they are only halfway through the first season and seem to be finding their footing. I thought episode 5 was fabulous, a really great hour of television. I actually think she show works better when there is a bit of action mixed in with all the talking.

I agree that there is an attempt to flesh out the characters (I liked most of that scene - Mark Addy was awesome in it), but the reason that the character development isn't working for me is that such scenes are few and far between. The nature of most character-based scenes in the show are expository. Either the dialogue is expository or the scene itself is expository. By that I mean by that there is often a lack of subtlety - each scene's intended message is very much in your face. For example, in the last episode, the Varys and Littlefinger confrontation is there to set-up a rivalry and to show off each character's expertise in sneakiness. The same could be said for the Loras and Renly interaction - why not hint at their relationship and leave it vague and ambiguous? Let the viewer wonder. And again, the same could be said for the Theon brothel scene, obviously meant to emphasize his internal conflict about his status within the Stark household.

In short, I would've preferred a more subtle approach to character development. Let the tension simmer. Let the physical acting and nuanced dialogue reveal character motivations. So why did the creators take the more obvious approach? In most cases it seems to be because they are setting up a plot point that hinges on that particular character development. So more often than not, the characterization is obviously there in support of the plot and not vice-versa. But as I said earlier, given the decision to have 10 episodes per book, there really was no way to do it otherwise. This is why I think that the approach itself was the wrong one (my opinion only).

You do make a very good point about the expectations of the show. Maybe they thought that given the medieval fantasy subject matter, they needed to put an emphasis on the plot and action and went down that route. But isn't the reason that GRRM's book are great exactly because he subverts the genre tropes with good characterization?

[Sancho]

Sorry my initial reply was needlessly spiky/rude. What I would do better to say is that further slowing the show's pace early in the first season when the scene had to be set and characters introduced never mind elaborated, then almost nothing would have happened plotwise in the first half of the season. Then it wouldn't matter how good or interesting the latter part would be because people would have gotten bored. Also in a first season one has a far smaller budget than seasons after some commercial success has been attained so I doubt they could afford to extend the story with no guarantee of even completing the first book at that rate. As it is, the story has been set moving at last. Most important players have been introduced and well established. The scene is reasonably well set and explained. Now and early season 2 is the time to add to character development, now that ratings are good and people are attached to the show and the characters and they don't need to learn 5 more each week. I would do some things differently, but I cannot think of one character that was much better developed in the book by this point than in the show. And I can think of at least 2 if not more that are much better if differently developed in the show than in the book. Most of the book's characterisation happens later on (in later books IMO) so I don't think the issue with the show is undercharacterisation.

You make good points. The characterization in the first book was not stellar, but that's because the characters were being set up as stereotypes to be subsequently deconstructed. A character-driven TV version of AGOT would definitely need a lot of adaptation and many scenes written-in for TV. The writers would of course have the benefits of the other three books and GRRMs input while doing so. And it is true that plot wise, the first half of the book is sluggish. But it is my opinion that good character writing could still make for some gripping TV in the first season. Maybe explore the relationships between the Lannister siblings. Explore Jon's fate as a bastard. Explore the culture and mythology of Westeros by showing it, not telling us about it. I do agree however that it would not be easy and that any changes in the adaptation (and some would certainly be needed) would cause controversy among the fans. I am also sure that there are constraints in terms of budget, target audience, etc. Given 10 episodes per book, a character-driven approach is certainly not possible. So yes, it would be risky, but I feel that as it is, they are playing it too safe creatively with this show.

[SerArthurHeath]

You make good points. The characterization in the first book was not stellar, but that's because the characters were being set up as stereotypes to be subsequently deconstructed. A character-driven TV version of AGOT would definitely need a lot of adaptation and many scenes written-in for TV. The writers would of course have the benefits of the other three books and GRRMs input while doing so. And it is true that plot wise, the first half of the book is sluggish. But it is my opinion that good character writing could still make for some gripping TV in the first season. Maybe explore the relationships between the Lannister siblings. Explore Jon's fate as a bastard. Explore the culture and mythology of Westeros by showing it, not telling us about it. I do agree however that it would not be easy and that any changes in the adaptation (and some would certainly be needed) would cause controversy among the fans. I am also sure that there are constraints in terms of budget, target audience, etc. Given 10 episodes per book, a character-driven approach is certainly not possible. So yes, it would be risky, but I feel that as it is, they are playing it too safe creatively with this show.

I think if early season 2 doesn't increase the character building I will agree with you. As it is, I am happy for them to set a marker down to build upon. But that's just me, I can understand why you would want to see some more work on character.

[Sancho]

I think if early season 2 doesn't increase the character building I will agree with you.

Let us hope that it does.

[pleonasm]

I think if a more experienced Show Runner was in place for GOT, they might have taken a few more risks with adapting the novel.

It might have been controversial, but I wonder if the show would have been better served by deferring the Daenery's storyline until the 2nd season? They could tell Clash of Kings over two seasons and easily interweave Dany's tale in at that point.

With just 10 episodes, everything is so crammed together that some great characters moments are constantly getting sacrificed to move the plot along.

The other advantage is the production budget could have being fully leveraged to make King's Landing and for that matter Westeros a fully living world. Its really noticeable over the last few episodes. From the sparsley populated tournament through to the lack of rain during Jamie and Ned conflict, the production that just doesn't have the money to fully flesh out the world or even string together a few scenes that leverage the visual medium.

Case in point: Instead of the peasants expositioning about Sandor Clegane's attack on their homes and towns in the throne room, open the episode with the attack. It doesn't have to massive, a half dozen horsemen storming an inn or cottage, but it would be far more powerful than spilling a bunch of fish on a floor.

[Taksi]

While I enjoy well written character-driven shows, I do not think that Game of Thrones would have worked in that format. GRRM writes amazing characters, and it is the characters that keep us invested in the story. But the story itself is ultimately plot-driven, not character-driven. The characters we know and love are defined by the situations they face and the decisions they make. They are more often than not thrust into situations beyond their control, to which they can only react. This is in contrast to a show like Deadwood, where most of the events of the plot arise from the interactions of the characters.

I do think the show has some pacing issues to work out, and I'd like to see them find the time to linger on some of the smaller character moments. But ultimately I'm very happy with how the show is bringing the characters to life. The OP says:

People that get attached to the characters will watch it season after season if the quality is there, and the plotting of GRRM's books is certainly good enough to keep the viewers on the edge of their seats for years.

But the only way people will get attached to these characters is by seeing them in action as the plot unfolds. For the most part, readers don't learn to love these characters by watching them stand around and talk (well, Tyrion might be the exception). We start loving (or hating) the characters based on how they react to everything that GRRM throws at them. The only way for the show to mimic that experience is by charging full speed ahead with the plot.

[Basileus777]

The source material doesn't suit a show like Mad Men. ASOIAF is a plot heavy story with tons of characters and a bunch of action, not a more personal drama about the lives of a small group of people.

If GOT were done like Mad Men, the first season would end before they got to King's Landing.

[Hyper]

I think if a more experienced Show Runner was in place for GOT, they might have taken a few more risks with adapting the novel.

It might have been controversial, but I wonder if the show would have been better served by deferring the Daenery's storyline until the 2nd season? They could tell Clash of Kings over two seasons and easily interweave Dany's tale in at that point.

With just 10 episodes, everything is so crammed together that some great characters moments are constantly getting sacrificed to move the plot along.

The other advantage is the production budget could have being fully leveraged to make King's Landing and for that matter Westeros a fully living world. Its really noticeable over the last few episodes. From the sparsley populated tournament through to the lack of rain during Jamie and Ned conflict, the production that just doesn't have the money to fully flesh out the world or even string together a few scenes that leverage the visual medium.

Ok??? So your suggestion is simply to have more hours and a bugger budget. In what way exactly would that be more risky from an adaptation standpoint? Yeah, in a perfect world that would be a no-brainer. BUT we should be happy we get 10 hours. Many novels of similar length are routinely adapted into feature films where you are lucky to get 2 hrs. And 10 hours is enough - Many people were already starting to get tired of the exposition in the first 4 episodes. Stretching it out further would be problematic I think.

Now your suggestion of moving the Dany storyline into season 2 is an interesting one, and more inline with the thread topic. I don't think it is a good idea, though - because Dany is such a compelling character - and a fan favorite. She provides a very strong female character to help put the male/female protagonist balance into a more even ratio. Besides, how will you deal with Roberts obesssion with killing Viserys/Dany? Would those references be cut out, or maintained?