Taking the Adaptation to Task: A TV Critic’s Perspective

[Dragonfish]

Like others have said, I think he makes some pretty darn good points (especially regarding the themes the producers are neglecting, and the nihilism they've injected into the show), but you have to read through a lot of muck to get to them. The sword-fighting thing was part of it, as was his complaint that it should be obvious that the actors ought to read the books. Shouldn't a TV critic know that sometimes actors prefer not to read an adaptation's source material because they don't want to know more than their character would know?

[Khal Pono]

If this sort of drivel what passes for professional criticism in Serbia, I'll be sure to stay away from there

[Kittykatknits]

I didn't agree with him 100%. I missed the camera work he was referring to and don't much care about that. I also thought Theon's storyline was very well done overall. But, I think many of his points were spot on, I found myself nodding my head at several points while reading this.

[Ran]

To be fair to Miodrag, one actor or another was specifically told by D&D that they preferred that he didn't read the source material first. I forget which one it was.

I am quite agnostic on it and err on the side of the actors as far as to what they find most valuable to their process, but I will say that I'm not sure I'm fond of D&D telling actors not to read it. Telling them that they can read it or not as they prefer seems much more reasonable.

[Khal Pono]

I'm not sure I'm fond of D&D telling actors not to read it if that's their preference.

I don't think that's what's going on. Based on interviews and dvd commetary, I think a number of the actors read the books and feel free to do so.

[Dragonfish]

To be fair to Miodrag, one actor or another was specifically told by D&D that they preferred that he didn't read the source material first. I forget which one it was.

I am quite agnostic on it and err on the side of the actors as far as to what they find most valuable to their process, but I will say that I'm not sure I'm fond of D&D telling actors not to read it if that's their preference.

Well, it seemed to me that his point was that the producers ought to have made the actors read the book, and that any other option other than this, including allowing the actors to decide for themselves whether or not to read it, was pure nonsense. I think your position that each actor should be allowed to do what they find most valuable to their process to be a good one, but it is clearly an opinion this critic does not share.

[Khal Pono]

For example, opera singers can give an amazing performance without even understanding what they're singing (and I'm sure some do understand them, some don't). 95% of the essay is just ridiculous and seems to show a basic lack of understanding about the moving picture medium.

[Ran]

Khal Pono,

Yes, I know a number have done so, but many of them appear to have done so of their own volition and not necessarily asking what D&D thought. Again, one actor -- I wish I could recall who -- has stated that they told him that they preferred he didn't (I'm quite sure it's a male actor, at least)...Ahh, right, it's Liam Cunningham. And okay, in his quote it's not so black and white ---

The boys said to me, ‘Have you read the books?’ And I said, ‘No, I don’t really like doing that.’ And they went ‘Well, we don’t tell anyone whether to read them or not, but we think it’s a good idea if the actors don’t.’ (laughs)… I think that’s fair enough.

Still, I'm not sure I like that admission, either. But it's definitely not in the same category as actively telling people not to, so that's okay.

Do I agree that the actors ought to all read it? No. I err on the side of the actors doing whatever they feel is best for their process. That said, do I think some actors might have benefited greatly from it in their performances? I think so. Charles Dance doesn't need to read the books to nail a lot of Tywin, but some familiarity with book Cersei might have kept her from being so rather bland in the first season (she's improved this second season).

It may come as no surprise that my favorite actor on this point is Kit Harington, who said that he feels he needs to read A Storm of Swords again because he worried as S2 went on that he was drifting too far away from the character and he wanted to ground himself again in George's vision.

For example, opera singers can give an amazing performance without even understanding what they're singing

Pretty sure most of the audience doesn't understand what they're singing, either, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison.

[Istakhr]

The complaint about speeding up the sword swings is, by some considerable margin, the most pedantic, pathetic complaint I have read about the show in the last two years, either here or on WiC. Seriously? That's how you open your serious critical assessment of the show?

Some of this other points approach legitimacy, but that silly opening section seriously damaged his credibility.

To be fair to him Brienne's first fight was a bit different than the other fights we saw in the series, like Brienne is some kind of supernatural or inhumanly fast fighter. But that is really a subjective thing. I don't think speeding up was done badly in general, at least in my view.

[Ser Hippie]

In the season finale post, I mentioned I was disappointed with and discouraged by the acidic and hostile nature that discussions about the TV show have begun to develop (between purist and not, fans of certain characters/stories and those who weren't, etc.). This post only reinforces my feeling that people aren't really interested in discussion but rather pushing their

It's mentioned that outside contributions are very rare, so unless I'm missing something (and I can't claim I know Mr. Zarković's status in Serbian or European critic circles), why was this where an exception was made? The way the post is written ("trenchant" commentary, etc.) suggests that it's because he's written a rant/argument (it's a bit of both) that the site-runners here agree with.

Perhaps it's silly, but I find the fact this was posted, as a very rare outside contribution and as "news", very frustrating given the feelings I expressed in the other thread.

[Ran]

I think I noted I don't agree with all of it. I posted it because it does say some things that I thought were worthwhile and thought-provoking for those who want to consider them. I also noted I was happy to publish responses or rebuttals from other TV writers/critics.

Read 'Game of Thrones News' on this forum as 'The Latest Post from the Westeros Game of Thrones site', and you may be happier, I couldn't say.

ETA: Oh, as to the reason for the "few", last year Pearson Moore wrote a number of essays for us, and this year we didn't line up anyone, but we did get a couple of writers offer pieces (actually, I think it was just one piece besides Miodrag's). If any essayist or professional writer would like to have material published at Westeros.org to reach our audience, we're open to them, and I think that'd be regardless of their views on the series. I RT all sorts of critics on Twitter/FB, pointing to their reviews, positive or mixed or negative alike.

[Ser Hippie]

I think I noted I don't agree with all of it. I posted it because it does say some things that I thought were worthwhile and thought-provoking for those who want to consider them. I also noted I was happy to publish responses or rebuttals from other TV writers/critics.

That's sort of a cop out though, I'm sorry. If you were going to provide a real foundation for discussion, the point/counterpoint ought to be presented at the same time. As it is, I feel like this has been posted with the intent of it being viewed as (more or less) the viewpoint of the site-owners; any rebuttal will come days from now and will inevitably suffer.

Anyway..

Read 'Game of Thrones News' on this forum as 'The Latest Post from the Westeros Game of Thrones site', and you may be happier, I couldn't say.

I'd be happier if I felt this forum was more conducive to productive discussion about the show, but c'est la vie. I'll stick to the book and off-topic parts.

[Ran]

s it is, I feel like this has been posted with the intent of it being viewed as (more or less) the viewpoint of the site-owners;

Well, it's not true, and I can say that until I'm blue in the face, but apparently you'd prefer to consider me a liar. Which, hey, is okay.

I'll add that since I do not have a stable of writers at my beck and call, to have the rebuttal lined up immediately really means you'd rather I not publish at all, because that's what it's tantamount to.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

So what if it's the viewpoint of the site-owners, are the site owners aren't allowed to post their view points now?

[kg1982]

Pretty sure most of the audience doesn't understand what they're singing, either, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison.

I always know what they're saying.. The Lyric in Chicago posts subtitles above the stage.

To be fair to Miodrag, one actor or another was specifically told by D&D that they preferred that he didn't read the source material first. I forget which one it was.

I am quite agnostic on it and err on the side of the actors as far as to what they find most valuable to their process, but I will say that I'm not sure I'm fond of D&D telling actors not to read it. Telling them that they can read it or not as they prefer seems much more reasonable.

I've never heard anything either way. It seems that a few actors - Kit Harrington and Alfie Allen - just got into the books and became fans like the rest of us. However, it is a valid method to not read the books as well --- I know that Dinklage doesn't read the books because he's afraid that knowing what happens to Tyrion will bias how he plays the character.. And I haven't heard any complaints about Dinklage's portrayal of Tyrion.

I think some of the character choices, namely Cat and Cersei, were intentional on the part of D&D. Cersei works better as a complex, interesting villain in the series than she does in the books.

As for the essay itself it is a silly fanboy rant, not a serious critique of the show. Gosh.. the hyperbole by book purists has gotten a little silly. I'd advise anyone who is that hot and bothered about the changes from the book to not watch the show. I do this all the time when something isn't interesting me anymore.

[Ser Hippie]

Well, it's not true, and I can say that until I'm blue in the face, but apparently you'd prefer to consider me a liar. Which, hey, is okay.

I said it's more or less your viewpoint, not your exact view in every instance. If it clarifies things for you, I think you agree with the big picture of the post - that the show fails as an adaptation of the books - while possibly disagreeing with some of his specific points, and that's part of why it was chosen. I don't mean that as a personal attack, just stating that's how it came across to me.

You might well use twitter to converse with critics who are fans of the show (I don't really use twitter, so I don't know), I was merely commenting that posting a lengthy anti-show diatribe felt like it added to the combative and unpleasant nature of show discussions here. Nothing more.

So what if it's the viewpoint of the site-owners, are the site owners aren't allowed to post their view points now?

Where did I ever say that? I simply said I found it a bit disconcerting this was presented as "news" given other sentiments I've expressed elsewhere (that discussion of the show on these forums has deteriorated in quality markedly), and that I suspected it was published at least in part because the site owners agree with it.

[Ran]

As I said, it's valid for the actors to decide for themselves. I'm not sure what you're responding to.

I suspect Cersei was tweaked to fit Lena Headey's portrayal from her audition, rather than because they naturally were going to go that way. And we'll agree to disagree on the book version of the character not being complex or interesting.

Ser Hippie,

said it's more or less your viewpoint

My viewpoint is here. More than twenty thousand words of it. I don't think I agree with him on a lot of things, and I'd guess you'd agree if you read it all. Do I agree with some? More or less. Maybe not from the same direction or with the same force as he does, but "broadly", sure. But the whole viewpoint? No. I myself am not quite so devoted to elements he is. But to each their own.

has largely failed

Never said it, don't believe. 7 of 10 for a season isn't a "largely failed" season. It's less of a success than S1 was, though, as I've said. As much of a failure as Miodrag thinks? No, not at all. But given a number of people have engaged with his points, some disagreeing with a deal of it but finding some useful things... well, mileage varies.

presented as "news"

And yet you never complain about past feature pieces that were posted as "News".

This topic basically just reposts our RSS feed. I call it "News" because that's what we call the section, but it's also the place for our site news in general -- when I post my review, that's not "news", that's my review and I'm letting people know about it. When I post a feature, I post to the News section to inform them about it.

It has always been this way. It is not anything new. We have not changed what we post to this forum -- any new post in any section of the Game of THrones sub-site gets a new post to notify people of the new content. It's also used to notify people of news regarding the series, yes. Some might say, well, split it into a News section and an Update section... and I'll say no. It's good to expose our features and our episode guides and anything else we please to the general readership interested in material about the series, whether they may or may not like it.

Anyways, you run your site the way you please, and I shall run my the way I please, and we're all good.

[Punchslap]

For those looking for other written reviews there are many to choose from (Charlie Jane Anders on io9, Myles McNutt's on Cultural Learnings, etc). These may have been referenced before, but there's plenty of content out there.

[Darth Pipes]

The reviewer brings up a lot of valid points but I can't take his review seriously. He complains about every single change and nothing is good enough for him. I found his comment that Book Cersei is more multidimensional than TV Cersei to be laughable.

I've never heard anything either way. It seems that a few actors - Kit Harrington and Alfie Allen - just got into the books and became fans like the rest of us. However, it is a valid method to not read the books as well --- I know that Dinklage doesn't read the books because he's afraid that knowing what happens to Tyrion will bias how he plays the character.. And I haven't heard any complaints about Dinklage's portrayal of Tyrion.

I think Dinklage read the first book but stopped at the second book. Not only because he didn't want to know what happens to Tyrion but he also said something that he pictured the various actors in the roles and that would affect how he viewed it in the story. Or something of that nature.

It's not unusual for producers to tell their actors that they don't have to read the book. A much different exampe is World Wrestling Entertainment, the WWE. They have writers like regular TV shows and they've been hiring Hollywood writers who know nothing about the wrestling industry. It really shows unfortuneately.

[Darth Pipes]

Sorry, double post...