Jump to content

Discussing the creative approach to adapting GOT


Sancho

Recommended Posts

Great thread, sancho.

I agree with most of what you are saying but the reality is movie studios (and TV studios) do not like to take too many chances these days so you won't be getting too many purely character-driven shows. They're considered too risky especially when a budget gets higher which is why we hardly ever see original big-budget movies these days. A show like The Sopranos worked I think because the budget probably wasn't that big (at least initially) so HBO was more willing to take more chances with it and the show had a mobster backdrop to it which also probably helped.

Doing an entire show devoted just for the King's tourney would probably be overkill, IMO (and not realistically feasible) but I was disappointed how little it was covered in the show (barely at all).

I can understand HBO taking a safer, more mainstream approach with the adaptation but I think there was/is still more room for more characterization. One thing that is starting to bug me is the introduction of new scenes that go on too long that really do not add depth to the show but rather just move the plot along.

A plot-driven show is nothing without characters that the viewer cares about. Are we getting that with the shows so far? The characterization seems to be hit or miss at times, IMO. To be honest, if I hadn't read the books I'm not sure if I'd still be watching the show at this point.

In short, my approach would've been to introduce longer scenes which would've allowed for more characterization, not included extraneous new scenes, kept the dialogue from the book as much as possible, slowed down the pacing, and be much more subtle about certain things. It's almost like all the surprises from the book are being revealed with not-so-subtle hints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A plot-driven show is nothing without characters that the viewer cares about. Are we getting that with the shows so far?

I certainly think so. From scouring the web (& twitter), it seems like a LOT of non-readers think so as well. (the usual caveats about subjective perception and sample size apply, of course)

The characterization seems to be hit or miss at times, IMO. To be honest, if I hadn't read the books I'm not sure if I'd still be watching the show at this point.

Uh-huh. :rolleyes: Again, look at newbie reactions. Some don't care much for the fantasy/medieval stuff, some are confused, some complain that not much is happening (at least before episode 5), but I have yet to see anyone complain about the characterization. Once the initial hurdles are overcome, the characters seem to be loved (& hated) as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From reading some of these threads and posts, i honestly want to know if other fans of the books are enjoying the show or do they much prefer to complain about what was not there. The show will not, and no show can be, a straight word to word adaptation of the books. Compared to other adapations I have seen, game of thrones is one of the most faithful to the source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to other adapations I have seen, game of thrones is one of the most faithful to the source material.

Hear, hear! How can people watch the huge, huge chunks of key dialogue and scenes that are being portrayed extremely--astoundingly--faithfully, and still complain so much? Books have been adapted to the screen for the past century. In terms of faithfulness to the letter and spirit of the source material, as well as the amount of sheer time (10 hours for one book! 20 or more hours for the next!) being used, Game of Thrones is easily in the top 5% of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that most of us who prone a more character-driven approach are complaining about the lack of faithfulness of the plot's adaptation. At least I am not - quite the opposite. I do not want a line-by-line re-threading of the book. I already read it and I know what happens. Rather, I think an adaptation should be faithful to the spirit, not the letter of the source material. Sticking to complete faithfulness often leads to the loss of the spirit of the work. A truly great adaptation can also offer the viewer some additional insights as allowed by the possibilities of a different medium.

Some have pointed out that the books are rather plot driven, and that we learn about the characters trough their reactions to plot twists and not trough dialogue. While this is partially true, it also true that the POV structure of the books allows us insight into the characters thoughts, personalities and motivations. The character's actions then proceed from his/her characterization or the motivations are later revealed and tied-in to the actions by POV chapters. Of course, POV is notoriously hard to do on film without resorting to crutches like voice-over. This why I believe that a greater departure from the book was required to make some really good TV. Some of the best moments in the show actually come from written-for-TV scenes (the dialogue between Cersei and Robert comes to mind). In my opinion, more of that was required instead of rushing trough the plot with character exposition that is obviously there to set-up and justify an upcoming plot-twist. In short, I think that the character's actions should naturally emanate from his/her characterization and not vice-versa, and that means taking the time to properly set-up and flesh out the characters without being brow-beaten by very obvious exposition. It is also important to take the time to explore the consequences that the actions and plot-twists have on further character development.

I am not promoting a Mad Men approach to GOT. Mad Men is purely character-driven and known for it's languid pace. The SOIAF books are both plot and character-driven, so a pace that slow would probably not be suitable. I was just giving examples of great-shows that are character-driven to illustrate the possibilities.

SFA-OK, I agree with much of your post. In particular, I believe that many of the scenes should be longer. I feel that not enough time is spent to set up the mood of the experience that the characters go trough, and as a result the atmosphere suffers. That's why I thought it might be interesting to have an entire episode focused on the tourney. I think it would be a great way to explore the the heraldry and the chivalric and martial aspects of Westeros culture which is a huge part of the book. It would also allow for the proper introduction of Beric Dondarrion, the Mountain, Thoros of Myr, etc. It could further characterize Jaime and the importance of his martial abilities in respect to his feeling of identity and self-worth. Now, I grant you that I haven't thought about it in depth or detail, so I can't argue whether it's a good idea or not in practice. Once again, I'm only trying to illustrate my personal vision of the show. I also agree about the lack of subtlety in many scenes. One area I would disagree on is that I think the show actually needs more written-for-TV scenes because of the difficulty of adapting the POV structure of the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand this complaint that scenes should be longer... There have already been plentiful examples of very long (&good) scenes between characters. Many of them new: Cersei/Robert, Varys/Littlefinger, plus several in episode 7 (Jaime/Tywin, Littlefinger/?) I shall not go into here. They show runners are *already* doing what you want, creating long scenes to fill in the characters. Notice that EVERY SINGLE new scene is setup that way, to give insight into characters that the POV structure of the book does not let us observe closely. And again, many of these scenes are close to (or more than) 5 minutes long - which is really at the edge of how long the majority of the audience can stomach just two people talking without interruption.

If they would be doing any more of it, they would be accused of not bothering with the source material. No, I think they have struck a good balance between scenes directly from the book and new material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand this complaint that scenes should be longer... There have already been plentiful examples of very long (&good) scenes between characters. Many of them new: Cersei/Robert, Varys/Littlefinger, plus several in episode 7 (Jaime/Tywin, Littlefinger/?) I shall not go into here. They show runners are *already* doing what you want, creating long scenes to fill in the characters. Notice that EVERY SINGLE new scene is setup that way, to give insight into characters that the POV structure of the book does not let us observe closely. And again, many of these scenes are close to (or more than) 5 minutes long - which is really at the edge of how long the majority of the audience can stomach just two people talking without interruption.

If they would be doing any more of it, they would be accused of not bothering with the source material. No, I think they have struck a good balance between scenes directly from the book and new material.

My bad. I didn't explain myself well enough. I did not refer to the length of the scenes you mention (Varys/Littlefinger I would remove completely). And certainly not in the sense of having characters talk for 10 minutes (although if well written, dialogue can be gripping). In this case I actually meant some of the plot-driven scenes that could have benefited from some additional time spent to set-up the atmosphere and the mood of the experience from the character perspective. For example, the opening sequence to the pilot episode was great. You felt the mystery and the dread as the men of the Nightwatch trekked trough the forest. I think the show needs more of that atmospheric set-up for the action. That's what I meant by longer scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I agreed Dany's storyline is compelling and offers some contrast, but its not necessary for it occur in parrallel with the main plot lines of Kings Landing, Winterfell, and the Wall.

Assuming the budget is constant, deferring Dany's storyline, enables the existing budget to be re-directed to Kings Landing. More sets, extra's, and most importantly scenes to fully tell that story. You can still have Robert obsess over her and her exploits and then tell her story later. Now book viewers would have all this ah-ha moments as her story unfolds.

From reading some of these threads and posts, i honestly want to know if other fans of the books are enjoying the show or do they much prefer to complain about what was not there. The show will not, and no show can be, a straight word to word adaptation of the books. Compared to other adapations I have seen, game of thrones is one of the most faithful to the source material.

I don't think anyone but die-hard literalists would quibble with how faithful the adaption has been, but what some of us are questioning is are they making the best use of the medium? Is it great television? I think its good television punctuated with sometimes awful and others time great moments.

Lets take a simple example, the Riverland small folk speak in the throne room about the attacks from Tywin's bannerman. Its exactly what happened in the book. But if the writers/directors opened the episode actually showing one of the attacks on a cottage or inn... the brutality and senselessness of it... would it have not been far more powerful? would it have not heightened the drama?

TV and Film are visual mediums, they have a different set of tools than an author. A shot or series of shots can be just as effective if it not more so if used correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets take a simple example, the Riverland small folk speak in the throne room about the attacks from Tywin's bannerman. Its exactly what happened in the book. But if the writers/directors opened the episode actually showing one of the attacks on a cottage or inn... the brutality and senselessness of it... would it have not been far more powerful? would it have not heightened the drama?

It's not a question of drama, it's a question of budget. Showing that scene would cost money, which would in turn require sacrifices elsewhere. The type of show you are advocating would be more expensive then what we are getting and likely less popular and successful for HBO as well.

Mad Men is a great show, but Mad Men isn't a commercial hit. And Mad Men or Breaking Bad would never have been made if they had a budget as high as GOT. For GOT to be successful, the show has to be aimed at a wider demographic than people who watch those AMC dramas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone but die-hard literalists would quibble with how faithful the adaption has been, but what some of us are questioning is are they making the best use of the medium? Is it great television? I think its good television punctuated with sometimes awful and others time great moments.

TV and Film are visual mediums, they have a different set of tools than an author. A shot or series of shots can be just as effective if it not more so if used correctly.

I agree with this. Personally, I'm not complaining about the show being unfaithful to the plot of the books, because it obviously hasn't been. It's about the actual content. Has it been good television so far? I'd say so, for the most part. Great television? No, at least so far.

As I've said before, when adapting a book to screen or to TV, the key is to make things standout (shots, pacing, characterization, etc.) and I just haven't seen much of that so far. It's been a real middle of the road approach so far. Not bad by a long shot, especially considering all the material, but not as good as it could be either.

I think maybe my expectations were too high when I heard HBO was going to adapt the books as opposed to Hollywood doing a series of film adaptations. HBO, recently, has produced a number of shows that have more artistic integrity than the vast majority of movies coming out of Hollywood and I assumed the GOT adaptation would be a little more artistic, creative, take more chances, etc. but that really hasn't been the case so far, IMO.

For example, what exactly would be wrong with devoting 20 or 30 minutes in an episode to just one story arc containing the same characters? It would allow for more characterization and allow for the audience to soak in that part of the story, allow more nuance, etc. What would be wrong with trying different camera angles to evoke emotion? Fans are saying some viewers that haven't read the books are already confused, but I don't think it's because there's too much characterization, it's because the pacing of the show is so fast at times, jumping from scene to scene.

I have to disagree with those that say the show has to follow a certain formula to be a hit. The Sopranos is one of the best written shows, IMO, to ever grace TV. It's artistic, has depth, is entertaining, etc. There were even episodes that were devoted almost entirely to dream sequences. And I'm pretty sure it was a big hit for HBO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Song of Ice and Fire are primarily plot driven books, despite the fact that they are told through POVs. In fact, it's overwhelmingly a plot driven book. Characters live and die, are popped in and plucked out, purely on the needs of the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I agree that ASOIF is primarily plot-driven. Personally, I'd go so far as to say that while some of the characters are interesting, character studies aren't really GRRM's strength. He does a great job of setting up an interesting story and showing it from different points of view, but I don't find any of the characters themselves particularly captivating.

So, naturally, I agree with the direction HBO has taken the show. I think a show that devoted entire episodes to set-pieces like the tournament would be fairly boring. GRRM keeps the story moving rather quickly in the books, and I think it would be a mistake to deviate from that model in the show.

Assuming the budget is constant, deferring Dany's storyline, enables the existing budget to be re-directed to Kings Landing. More sets, extra's, and most importantly scenes to fully tell that story. You can still have Robert obsess over her and her exploits and then tell her story later. Now book viewers would have all this ah-ha moments as her story unfolds.

You can't get rid of Dany's story in season 1. Much of the action in the 7 Kingdoms only makes sense against the backdrop of a slowly increasing Targaryen/Dothraki threat.

Lets take a simple example, the Riverland small folk speak in the throne room about the attacks from Tywin's bannerman. Its exactly what happened in the book. But if the writers/directors opened the episode actually showing one of the attacks on a cottage or inn... the brutality and senselessness of it... would it have not been far more powerful? would it have not heightened the drama?

In addition to the point about budget, the actual attack itself is relatively unimportant. What matters most is Ned's reaction to it. It's not like the initial fight with the White Walkers which we have to see for ourselves to know that the Others are real. Thus, you'd end up having to both show the attacks and the scene in the throne room, which would mean a lot of time devoted to a relatively minor part of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could do it in a 10 episode season, but if there was more time, one of the things I would find interesting is simulating/establishing the unreliable narrator-POV structure of the books.

I would have scenes opening with the camera following one character in particular as they enter the scene, and establish them as the 'viewpoint' character. Early in the first couple episodes I'd have a short bit where you see the same scene twice, each time from a different point of view. However, there would be differences between the two scenes, maybe even in the way the actors deliver lines, to establish the 'unreliable narrator' in the minds of the viewer.

I think it would be keeping with one of the series themes about morality and honour often being in the eye of the beholder. It would also build more mystery or amibguity around the non-POV characters (say Littlefinger, Varys, or Robert, for example). In the books there are moments when characters remember the same moment differently and this could help make those scenes work. As well, one of the most suspenseful scenes in ASOS works because of the limited POV. The character suspects something is wrong, and is looking for evidence of it but because of the nature of what is going on around him or her, it is really hard to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really aren't two good approaches to writing -- good writing exposes character development and changes through plot and the character development informs the plot.

Game of Thrones is a character-driven story and it continually makes choices to show the reactions to plot points and motivations of characters' actions OVER the actions themselves.

Were Game of Thrones less focused on character, we would not have gotten minutes of Renly and Littlefinger betting over the Hound versus Loras and just scant shots of the fight -- we'd have gotten more of the fight itself. There's plenty of little examples like this.

If you're comparing it to Mad Men or Breaking Bad or any one of a number of other HBO, I don't think what you are complaining about is caused by too much focus on the plot. Game of Thrones has a ton of plot -- but not because it's ignoring character.

It has a ton of plot because it has too many main characters for it to have gone very smoothly early without dropping characters wholesale from episodes. Lots of these shows have tons of characters -- but none of them have the 10 or so main characters GoT has.

Many folks would have simply dropped or combined characters. Many folks who have dropped not just plot points but whole plot lines.

I think it's a credit to D&D that they haven't (yet) and while it's not perfect, it's been a very good adaptation and great tv so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you could do it in a 10 episode season, but if there was more time, one of the things I would find interesting is simulating/establishing the unreliable narrator-POV structure of the books.

I would have scenes opening with the camera following one character in particular as they enter the scene, and establish them as the 'viewpoint' character. Early in the first couple episodes I'd have a short bit where you see the same scene twice, each time from a different point of view. However, there would be differences between the two scenes, maybe even in the way the actors deliver lines, to establish the 'unreliable narrator' in the minds of the viewer.

I think it would be keeping with one of the series themes about morality and honour often being in the eye of the beholder. It would also build more mystery or amibguity around the non-POV characters (say Littlefinger, Varys, or Robert, for example). In the books there are moments when characters remember the same moment differently and this could help make those scenes work. As well, one of the most suspenseful scenes in ASOS works because of the limited POV. The character suspects something is wrong, and is looking for evidence of it but because of the nature of what is going on around him or her, it is really hard to see.

This is a neat idea, and I'd love to see something do this somewhere. (I mean, again, as it has been done -- perhaps most famously in Kirosawa's Rashoman). But I do think this "gimmick" tends to dominate the story -- the focus is in how things are perceived differently, etc., and I think it would be exceptionally hard to execute so that the differences were apparent but not comical, so that the gimmick played into the plot so it wasn't just a gimmick, etc.

In other words, I don't think it would have actually been the right move for a tv series of multiple seasons, but it'd be neat to see someone do a movie again like this in a more modern context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have appreciated a more character-driven show than what I feel we're getting. There was a recent podcast out (sorry, I'm not diligent enough in my fannishness any more to remember) with Mo Ryan and the dude from Cultural Leanings and two other notable GoT critics where one of them (I'd hazard to guess Mo, because I tend to agree with her the most frequently) pointed out that the plot itself isn't really all that groundbreaking. Kingdom is on the brink of ruin, people vie for political power, etc. What makes ASOIAF, at least, unique is the things Martin does with perspective and how that toys with our relationships to characters. GoT is not built with that dynamic as its ultimate shaping force. While there are obviously strong characters (though IMO many of them are lacking sufficient nuance) and sometimes we can see that they have clashing perspectives on things, it's not something that jumps out at an audience and really forces them to think.

I don't think GoT has to be Mad Men, I don't think it could be. But I think the show comes off a lot like "This happens then this then this and then that" and they miss a lot of opportunities to tweak little details to make things more specific and subtle in terms of character. For me that's really detracting from the show. I think I would have had a different order of priorities.

HBO/B&W/etc have shown that when they put their mind to it they can pull out some high quality stuff. In season two I hope they can deal with Martin's world better, perhaps they'll feel less enslaved by exposition and more willing to break free from prevailing marketing "wisdoms". Right now I enjoy this show on the level of seeing various scenes brought to life, but a lot of characters I care about are losing a lot in translation, and by now the show could have started building a tighter mythology. I also think, though, that HBO needs to start giving this show at least 13 episodes a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think GoT has to be Mad Men, I don't think it could be. But I think the show comes off a lot like "This happens then this then this and then that" and they miss a lot of opportunities to tweak little details to make things more specific and subtle in terms of character. For me that's really detracting from the show. I think I would have had a different order of priorities.

Agreed. The show is doing an incredible job of getting just about every major plot point from the book into the series, but with little of the emotional impact. I lay the blame on the showrunners and the directors. I keep thinking about the opening scenes this week with the massacre of the Stark staff at the Red Keep and Arya's 1st kill. Its faithful, but its poorly put together. From the lack of tension (at no point was I even worried for the safety of any of the lead characters) through to the stable boys inept line delivery... the scenes are flat. And most tragic, it lacked the emotional weight a montage of scenes like that should have. Everything looks and feels like a 1st take/edit.

And I don't think its soley a budget/constraint of time issue... talented folks can and have done more with less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't think its soley a budget/constraint of time issue... talented folks can and have done more with less.

I agree, it's just about priorities. Once you decide what you want to do, it's pretty doable. It doesn't cost any more money to write a better line of dialog or make better cutting room decisions, just the intent and insight.

And I agree with the rest of your post. They are cramming a lot in there, but they aren't making me care as much. Or in other words, at this point I care because I cared about the book counterparts, which says more about the source material than the adaptation. I'm not saying it's a terrible show, but it has so much potential to be more.

I think the show is most in touch with the series' scope, the breadth and vastness, but not the textures and particular emphases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are cramming a lot in there, but they aren't making me care as much. Or in other words, at this point I care because I cared about the book counterparts, which says more about the source material than the adaptation. I'm not saying it's a terrible show, but it has so much potential to be more.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I find myself, at this point, watching the show just to see how certain scenes and plot turns are done on screen. The show is well done overall, but if I hadn't read the books I doubt I'd still be watching the show. Hopefully things improve as the series moves on (I'll still be watching, regardless, because I'm a fan of the books).

I agree 100% with the podcast person that said the plot for ASOIAF isn't really that ground breaking or amazing. The books clearly revolve around the characters and how they interact with one another, even if the books aren't technically character-driven. There are so many great characters in these books it's actually pretty amazing. Some fans might be offended by this but in essence the books, IMO, are a really well written medieval soap opera that involve great characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I find myself, at this point, watching the show just to see how certain scenes and plot turns are done on screen. The show is well done overall, but if I hadn't read the books I doubt I'd still be watching the show. Hopefully things improve as the series moves on (I'll still be watching, regardless, because I'm a fan of the books).

I agree 100% with the podcast person that said the plot for ASOIAF isn't really that ground breaking or amazing. The books clearly revolve around the characters and how they interact with one another, even if the books aren't technically character-driven. There are so many great characters in these books it's actually pretty amazing. Some fans might be offended by this but in essence the books, IMO, are a really well written medieval soap opera that involve great characters.

I'm not offended but I don't agree either. I think the story on it's own is original and compelling, the way Martin set the whole thing up with the use of POVs adds a lot to it of course I agree there. I also agree with you guys that I'm not really invested as much as I was when reading the books, not nearly as much. BUT looking at the budget and the way they set everything up I can't really see how they could make huge improvements. I don't know how I would do it differently if I had to cram everything in to ten episodes. I would change/delete a few scenes but that is probably personal taste. Overall I think they are doing a fine job with the resources they have.

I think the show can be a success the way it is now but for it to have the same feel as the books it needs to be given more room. I've read that some people were criticizing that scenes are rushed or not played out long enough. I don't necessarily have any problems there but I do have problems with how much of the book they cover with certain scenes/episodes. The bigger picture I guess. The ideal situation would be to see one season span 24 episodes or something like that. Maybe in 50 years they'll do a great new series ;). For now I've enjoyed the show though while waiting for the main course that is ADWD. I just took some time to adjust my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...