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

[Aemon Stark]

While there a few good points in that "review", it simply reads like a poorly edited compendium of nitpicks and general ranting about any and all changes. (I was particularly surprised by the comments about Theon's story.)

Years ago my dad got me a "Nitpickers' Guide" to Star Trek: The Next Generation - basically an episode guide to the show, with each episode scrutinized for plot oversights, continuity problems, changed premises - all the sort of things people are harping on for GoT, the difference being that it was done with wit, humour, and, generally, appreciation for the show. Other guides followed for DS9, the X-Files, and eventually a whole forum sprung up.

What is striking is that it was never mean-spirited, there were few declarations that "nobody" would enjoy a scene or, say, any people writing this kind of nonsense:

After Theon Greyjoy exposed crisped corpses of two youngest Starks to the shocked and disgusted residents of Winterfell, nobody in the TV audience was equally shocked or disgusted, let alone as furious as 12 months ago when mostly animals were being slain for crimes they didn’t commit. Not a single soul threatened to quit HBO over tragic fates of two completely innocent kids, in contrast to Ned’s death last season, which prompted thousands of viewers to proclaim they are to cancel their subscription. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that TV audience simply didn’t buy the notion that those bodies belonged to Bran and Rickon. It appears that the TV audience saw right through Theon’s deception.

Well, I *was* certainly shocked and at least affected by the scene, not because I thought Theon had killed Bran and Rickon, of course, but because of the visceral staging and impressive performances. Luwin's cry of anguish, Theon's expression - it was possibly the most powerful moment of the season insofar as the character implications went, and Alfie Allen carried it flawlessly. Same goes for his execution of Rodrik Cassell. It was simply great television. While I can't really know whether a novice viewer would have believed that the bodies were indeed the Stark kids, is it not shocking enough that Theon had had two completely innocent boys murdered in their place? It's not like we're supposed to think he did otherwise in the book - the foreshadowing is as present there as it is in the series.

In any case, these kinds of declaratives about how "nobody" believed this or that or found a particular scene compelling do not belong in any kind of review, professional or otherwise (this guy is a professional critic? What kind of third-rate rag does he write for?). Otherwise the "review" is just 7,000+ words of nitpicking, poorly argued, and poorly edited.

Ran, I really think your reviews set a pretty high standard for thoughtfulness and quality of form even if I haven't agreed that much this season with them. It does a disservice to the site to provide space for such substandard commentary.

[JW.]

It's really simple for me personally.

When Francis Ford Coppola first read the book that the Godfather was based upon, he found it quite boring and not exactly exciting enough to be adapted into a movie. So he changed it, and the movie turned out to be quite different from the books. A great choice, the movies ( first two) are legendary now.

What is the point, you may ask. Well, it's simple: D&D can change all they like and i'll be fine with it, aslong as it is as good as the original, or better. And there is my major beef with Season 2, i disliked almost every change, in both dialogue and how characters are being shown. I really hope that 20 episodes for book three will set them on the right path.

[boojam]

"(In a nutshell: Marshal described how, while filming the “Bronn singing with a whore in his lap” scene, one of the execs persuaded/ordered him to put much more emphasis on the naked female body; the unnamed exec – most certainly one of the showrunners, David Benioff or D. B. Weiss – explained that he represents “the pervert side of the audience” and demanded the nudity to be fully exposed, which was a situation that Marshal described as “pretty surreal.”)"

Ran: Miodrag Zarković makes this quote without any evidence or proof given.

It could have come by way of HBO execs unknown , true could have been by way of Benioff and Weiss , under orders , from on high at HBO.

So this is blatantly unfair.

There has been been some superfluous nudity in the series , but there are several cases of 'in context' nudity also.

I notice that even YouTube is sane enough to allow Dany's nudity in the last scene from Season 1, there could be no more in-context element.

Even this Bronn scene did not seem out of context, unless one is a prude.

But look George does it all the time in the books, even to the point of placing sex scenes that don't advance the narrative.

So this is an unfair and poorly thought out criticism.

[Ran]

It is not an HBO executive, sorry. It was an executive producer. One who was on set. Marshall notes that Benioff and/or Weiss was always on set.

Carloyn Strauss is not a regular on set. Hers is more a courtesy title, and maybe she helps out from LA. Frank Doelger is occasionally on set, but the showrunners, the ones who are the ones who tell the director what to do, are David and Dan. Not Doelger. Nor Strauss. David and Dan.

It was, in any case, an executive producer. If you don't want to believe it was Benioff or Weiss, fine. But an executive producer. Not an HBO exec. I promise you that much, as someone who attended filming and saw how it worked. If they have notes for the production, they deliver them to the executives when they see dailies, they don't interfere with the director.

ETA: Here is the transcript from Boiled Leather:

But the weirdest part was when you have one of the exec producers leaning over your shoulder, going, “You can go full frontal, you know. [Laughter] This is television—you can do whatever you want! And do it! I urge you to do it.” So I was like, “Okay, well, if you—you’re the boss.”

....

This particular exec took me to one side and said, “Look, I represent the pervert side of the audience, okay? Everybody else is the serious drama side—I represent the perv side of the audience, and I’m saying I want full frontal nudity in this scene.”

"This" clearly refers to the executive producer noted earlier.

[boojam]

It is not an HBO executive, sorry. It was an executive producer. One who was on set. Marshall notes that Benioff and/or Weiss was always on set.

Carloyn Strauss is not a regular on set. Hers is more a courtesy title, and maybe she helps out from LA. Frank Doelger is occasionally on set, but the showrunners, the ones who are the ones who tell the director what to do, are David and Dan. Not Doelger. Nor Strauss. David and Dan.

It was, in any case, an executive producer. If you don't want to believe it was Benioff or Weiss, fine. But an executive producer. Not an HBO exec. I promise you that much, as someone who attended filming and saw how it worked. If they have notes for the production, they deliver them to the executives when they see dailies, they don't interfere with the director.

ETA: Here is the transcript from Boiled Leather:

"This" clearly refers to the executive producer noted earlier.

Then this must have been true of Bruno Heller , David Milch , David Chase ..., just to mention a few, too?

Even with the change in management?

Let's not leave George out this too, it's also on the page.

Frankly , I don't even mind mild gratuitous sex , it does not help when it's just a plot spinner tho, waste of narrative time.

I frankly think it is an HBO corporate projection of freedom from the MPAA and I approve.

Maybe Mr. Zarković is Victorian (odd thing to say!).

[Ran]

Then this must have been true of Bruno Heller , David Milch , David Chase ..., just to mention a few, too?

Yes? Showrunners are the ones who tell directors what to do. An executive from HBO is not referred to as an executive producer. The executive producers are D&D, Strauss, and Doelger... and Strauss isn't on set, and Doelger, from my experience, is only occasionally present. It's D&D's show. Marshall also notes that one or the other was always on hand.

Let's not leave George out this too, it's also on the page.

He's not the executive producer in question. He's not an executive producer, and he wasn't present at all for any of the filming this year.

I think more people take issue with the executive producer characterizing the need for nudity as being there to placate "the pervert side" of the audience, and not so much that there was nudity in the scene.

[Miodrag]

I’m somewhat puzzled with so many people not minding the fast-motioning scenes described in my piece. Allow me to explain a little more why those scenes bothered me so much:

Imagine you’re in the editing room. You’re watching the swordfight scene. You realize it wasn’t choreographed the way you wanted, and it isn’t effective enough. But, you can’t get back to the set and do it all over again. So, you basically have two options: 1) leave it as it is; 2) fast-motion parts you find particularly slow.

What I strongly believe is that taking the road number 2 is disrespectful to the audience, because the success of that operation depends on them not taking a notice of it. Simply put, you have to trick them, or fast-motioning doesn’t make sense at all. It isn’t a fast-motioning people are supposed to spot, and then welcome or not; quite the contrary, actually. And you’re not pulling this trick for plot related reasons, as when in narration you omit some information to create the tension, but sometime later do reveal those information after all: those are tricks that audience often welcomes, and, more precisely, that fiction is very much grounded in. No, this here is just an attempt to cover your earlier mistakes (in choreography, or camera work, or acting) with a cheap eye-fooling trick that you hope will go unnoticed. It is like watching a TV broadcast of a magician’s performance, only to find out his tricks aren’t depending on his performance on stage, but instead they rely on camera hiding from the audience what he actually does or does not – hence, the camera is doing the trick, not him.

Call me ridiculous, or too big a purist, or biased, or whatever, but I find this kind of editing to be insulting for viewers.

And I guess I’m not the only one. You see, there was a lot of action in the shows I do praise in my piece: The Wire, The Sopranos and Breaking bad. I’m pretty sure that the creators of those shows in some points found themselves in the very situation I described: they’re in the editing room, and the footage they’re seeing doesn’t satisfy them. However, none of them pulled a trick that is so cheap that relies solely on fooling the viewers’ eyes by playing the card of biological limitations of human sight.

Actually, can’t recall any other TV show that used this kind of “editing”, and I tend to watch a lot of shows. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single similar case of editing in shows we came to regard as high-drama. If there is, please notify me, for I’d better stop praising them.

That is why I decided to open my piece with fast-motioning. All the other gripes I count, do not insult me as a viewer. They may be an insult to the source material and to the show itself, as I strongly believe, or they may be necessary/welcomed/not-so-bad aspects of TV adaptation, as many other viewers/readers strongly believe. But, fast-motioning is, as I wrote, something that touches the very nature of filming in general. I get that some people don’t find it offensive as I do, or not offensive at all, and therefore they think my piece was worse off for putting those two scenes in the opening section, but I’d really do it again. Only this time, I’d expand the explaining with points I made in this post.

Cheers,

Miodrag Zarković

[David Selig]

However, none of them pulled a trick that is so cheap that relies solely on fooling the viewers’ eyes by playing the card of biological limitations of human sight.

That's the whole point of TV and cinema, isn't? None of it would exist if our sight didn't have biological limitation. All of it is based on fooling the viewers' eyes.

[Miodrag]

That's the whole point of TV and cinema, isn't? None of it would exist if our sight didn't have biological limitation. All of it is based on fooling the viewers' eyes.

No. I don't think there is a whole point of TV and cinema, but I do believe NONE of the points of television and cinema should SOLELY rely on biological limitations, as it is the case here. For a film or a TV to be successful in artistic and, more importantly, philosophic sense, it has to look like the camera captured the action that would’ve happen anyway, even with our eyes/camera not being present there. Action in New Jersey, action in Riverlands, action in offshore colonies or space ships... doesn’t matter how “contemporary drama” or fantasy or SF it is: viewers need to feel that the action is taking place in front of them, or the magic of viewing experience is gone.

The theatre relies on same experience in it’s core, and, thanks to technology, TV and cinema can enrich that experience in some aspects. In fantasy and SF material, viewers regularly experience surreal, twisted sites, with special effects heavily involved – dragons, for example; but, picturing dragons that fire flames isn’t the same as tricking the human eye nor it’s limitations. Yes, our eyes get treated with something that doesn’t exist in the real world, but it’s not tricking the eyes, nor our minds for that matter. Nobody is tricking anybody, actually: we, as viewers, are invited to involve in the world that we all know doesn’t exist. More honest and skillful an invitations it is, better will be viewers’ response. But, once again, those invitations should never be so cheap as in described swordfights.

And look, Chaplin used a lot of fast-motioning in his films, but it was OK because he wasn’t hiding it. He used it to highlight his funny walk or the clumsiness of his foes, but the audience was supposed to realize fast-motioning. Also, slow-motioning is used all the time, but we as the audience are always aware of it.

[Miodrag]

And, since I’m on a roll here, two thing will eternally fascinate me in Sandor-Sansa story:

1) Love stories are often depicted as two people being attracted to each other on the basis of their virtues, and it often is like that in the real world, on conscious level at lest. But, on sub-conscious level, which is stronger then the conscious one, human beings are mutually attracted with their shortcomings as much as they are with their good qualities, and perhaps even more. I find that fiction rarely touches the sub-conscious level, and almost never as good as in this story.

2) How much is accomplished with so few words, interactions and exchanges. In the novels, we don’t even witness the biggest thing he done for her, when he saved her during the riot, and yet I believe the vast majority readers can recognize how strong his feelings for her are.

With that many love stories out there, and quite a few of them really great, it should go without saying that judging a certain story as one of the all-time greats is largely a matter of personal taste, but I believe it is legit to consider this one nothing short of some other love stories that are widely considered great.

[Balintos]

It's a little bit harsh but true. It would be more interesting to read the review of a critic who hasn't read the books. I wonder if a non-reader would say the same mistakes.

[David Selig]

Every single movie or TV series ever made relies on fooling the sight of the viewer. That's the basis of the technology used for filmmaking.

That's why I really don't understand your complaint about fast-motion. The vast majority of the viewers didn't even notice it, and most of those who did, didn't care. Filmmaking always relies on tricking the viewers through acting, editing, special effects, etc. The fast motion technique didn't work for you in this scene - OK, but I don't understand why this small detail has apparently pretty much ruined the show for you and would automatically make any show which uses it not worthy of praise.

[Istakhr]

Every single movie or TV series ever made relies on fooling the sight of the viewer. That's the basis of the technology used for filmmaking.

That's why I really don't understand your complaint about fast-motion. The vast majority of the viewers didn't even notice it, and most of those who did, didn't care. Filmmaking always relies on tricking the viewers through acting, editing, special effects, etc. The fast motion technique didn't work for you in this scene - OK, but I don't understand why this small detail has apparently pretty much ruined the show for you and would automatically make any show which uses it not worthy of praise.

The vast majority of viewers noticed something. That's why when you look at the non reader forums most believe Brienne to be the best fighter or one of the best fighters in Westeros, just because no one else fights so fast.

[Dunnii]

Wow, I'm really surprised. I thought his article was very insightful and I loved it. And I'm not even a picky person by nature -- but he's right. The writers screwed up big-time on some great moments in book 2:

1. The shock and horror I felt when Bran and Rickon were "killed." The burning of Winterfell. I cried; I was shocked; I felt nothing during the TV show.

2. The butchering of Jamie and Cat's conversation. This also goes back to number 1.

3. Jon Snow.

4. The departure of the Hound.

I disagree with so many of you. My hope is that D&D ignore what they've said in the past and read some online criticism. They need it. They've lost their way. They especially need to read the part about honor.

[Aemon Stark]

The vast majority of viewers noticed something. That's why when you look at the non reader forums most believe Brienne to be the best fighter or one of the best fighters in Westeros, just because no one else fights so fast.

Yes, viewers noted what was meant to come across by the technique used, i.e. by the special effect. This part, at least, is nothing more than nitpicking, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. There is not a TV show or movie made that doesn't make use of special effects or filming tricks.

[Miodrag]

Yes, viewers noted what was meant to come across by the technique used, i.e. by the special effect. This part, at least, is nothing more than nitpicking, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. There is not a TV show or movie made that doesn't make use of special effects or filming tricks.

Tony Soprano, Omar Little, Commander Adama, Walter White, and many other guys we came to love as characters and enjoy their shenanigans, had more than their share of action sequences. And none of them, ever, was fast-motioned! There were many opportunities where creators of their respective shows could’ve used this trick, and we can suspect there were instances where creators were desperately unsatisfied with the raw footage – and yet, none of them ended up doing what D&D did.

So, if I’d want to be cynical, I could interpret your statement as a suggestion that creators of those other shows are somewhat incompetent in comparison to D&D, because they missed so many opportunities to use something – “special effects”, you claim – that you not only aren’t bothered with, but even approve. However, I’m fully aware that it’s not what you wanted to state. But, maybe I’m wrong, disingenuous as I am.

[DurararaFTW]

Tony Soprano, Omar Little, Commander Adama, Walter White, and many other guys we came to love as characters and enjoy their shenanigans, had more than their share of action sequences. And none of them, ever, was fast-motioned! There were many opportunities where creators of their respective shows could’ve used this trick, and we can suspect there were instances where creators were desperately unsatisfied with the raw footage – and yet, none of them ended up doing what D&D did.

So, if I’d want to be cynical, I could interpret your statement as a suggestion that creators of those other shows are somewhat incompetent in comparison to D&D, because they missed so many opportunities to use something – “special effects”, you claim – that you not only aren’t bothered with, but even approve. However, I’m fully aware that it’s not what you wanted to state. But, maybe I’m wrong, disingenuous as I am.

I'd have to argue swordfights and gunfights are different when it comes to making people look at adept at it in a tv show.

[Miodrag]

I'd have to argue swordfights and gunfights are different when it comes to making people look at adept at it in a tv show.

Fistfights? Knives?

[Istakhr]

Yes, viewers noted what was meant to come across by the technique used, i.e. by the special effect. This part, at least, is nothing more than nitpicking, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. There is not a TV show or movie made that doesn't make use of special effects or filming tricks.

They might have meant for Brienne to be inhumanly fast. :dunno:

I agree that's not a bad thing in a fantasy show. The only thing is she is now able to make mincemeat out of Jaime, Drogo and the Hound. (We have seen them fight, they were so slow)

My only minor nitpick is if they were going to fast track the fights, they could have at least tried to keep fighting speed of different people consistent.

[Dunnii]

You two are fighting about something so inconsequential when the article in question raised some great points. Jeez.