Reviewing the Rains of Castamere

[Miodrag]

That argument holds only as far as the author themself holds their work as sacrosanct. You can never escape the fact that Martin sold his creativity and in doing so made the decision to cede creative control over the derived product. Other authors have retained much tighter control of their intellectual property but Martin was willing to give it up to quite a large degree. He knew how TV worked so can't claim ignorance if he doesn't like the show D&D+HBO have put together.

It's perfectly valid to argue the adaptation should be entirely faithful because, hey, that's what you prefer and think would make for a better show, but any notion that D&D+HBO should "respect" Martin's creativity went out the window when Martin himself decided he respected their money a whole lot more. It's not unheard of for authors to withdraw their cooperation completely if they don't like how their work is being handled (see Alan Moore for an object lesson in creative integrity that has probably cost him millions) so George is either happy with the adaptation (I believe he broadly is) or rather likes the benefits he reaps from it (fame, parties, money, a shop window for his less successful works) which I believe he does.

Franz Kafka ordered all of his works to be burned after he dies. Luckily, his best friend went against Kafka’s wish, and the humanity didn’t loose his novels, which are among the most influential in the 20^th century. Of course, it doesn’t mean Kafka hold his own work in a low regard. And there was no money involved, so his “verdict” over his books is surely more noble than selling the copyrights to some other medium. But, authors tend to have strange relations with their work. Tolstoy had an intense love-hate relation with many of his novels. Even if he died hating his "The Kreutzer Sonata" and "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", I can’t help but look at those novels as a literature triumphs.

Legally, you’re right, nothing stands in the way of D&D to do whatever they want with the show. But, GRRM didn’t sell his creativity, as you claim. He sold the rights to an adaptation, but not to the source material. So, my respect for Martin’s genius remains with the novels. It’s D&D who didn’t earn my respect, because of the way they adapted something I consider a masterpiece. They were inside their rights to reject any notion they should respect GRRM's genius, but it doesn't change my impression on their work.

[Dragonstoned]

Tolstoy had an intense love-hate relation with many of his novels. Even if he died hating his "The Kreutzer Sonata" and "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", I can’t help but look at those novels as a literature triumphs.

Kreutzer Sonata is a bit crap tbf, even if it was important for gender studies. Death of Ivan Ilyich on the other hand is worth reading.

[Honourable Ser]

Wouldn't go so far to take IMDB ratings seriously, they're way too foolish and fanboyish (not just for GoT, but in general). Your personal judgment, however, is entirely different case, and I’ll happily debate it.

Let's see... Of the three shows you counted, I'd exclude Rome, because, while enjoyable and watchable, it suffered from the similar inconsistencies and ridiculousness as GoT is (and it was also choking with over-the-top sex). Mad Men is, as I said, not my cup of tea, but in the one season of it I've seen, there wasn't a single stupidity on par with "Pod The Sex Deity" or with "I invoke sumae" or with some other embarrassing-to-watch stuff we're debating here for years. My view is that the chain is as strong as it’s weakest link is. Based on a personal interest, we can all prefer this show or that show, but if we measure the weakest links, I believe we’ll get closer to objectivity in our judgment. So, while Mad Men never grabbed my interest, it didn’t contain a single link that is as weak as the stupidest scenes from GoT, which is why I rate it higher than GoT, even if I stopped watching it.

I can say something similar for “Deadwood”. It interested me more than Mad Men did, but I wasn’t some huge fan of it. However, once again I can’t recall the single thing “Deadwood” did that made me embarrassed as a watcher. Closest thing to a stupidity would be the Al-Bulock fight at the beginning of the second season, that ended abruptly with a convenient arrival of latter’s wife; which is, like, some lame writing, but not near the lamest we’ve seen in GoT.

Which brings me to this conclusion: GoT would’ve been a much better show, if the adaptation was put in the hands of David Simon or David Chase or David Milch or Whiner... Simon even said in some interview that he watches and likes GoT (it was after the first season ended). Just imagine him and Pelecanos and other writers from “The Wire” scripting the episodes of “Game of Thrones”: wouldn’t it be, like, in the league of it’s own?!

Deadwood did have way too much swearing and sex in it though. But then, that doesn't bother me.

[Mad Madam Mim]

On a lighter note....the funniest moment of the series has to be Ayra hitting the poor wagon dude around the head and strolling away, leaving Sandor like "wtf!". Hilarious!

[briantw]

No, I just don’t want to pretend that a stricter adaptation is impossible. In fact, even with the same amount of money they have, a much stricter one could’ve easily been done. Had they kept closer to the book-Robb story, the show would’ve been better off. Had they kept closer with the Theon/Reek dynamics, the show would’ve been better off. (And really, in retrospect, how was it justifiable to cast Dagmer and not Reek for season 2?) Had they stick closer to Jon’s arch, the show would’ve been endlessly better of. These are all non-budget aspects.

And anyway, how am I to know are they spending their budget smartly or not?! You know, 60-70 million dollars is a lot of money. Though smaller than the budgets of A movies, it’s still pretty big for a television. Maybe it really isn’t enough for bigger scenes, just like they claim. But, maybe they simply spent it on wrong things, like expensive actors/directors/sets. And who knows, maybe D&D could’ve get more money from HBO had they negotiated better and tougher?

It’s all pure speculation, of course, but also is the notion that the budget is their biggest obstacle. We just don’t know, we can only speculate is 60-70 million per season enough or isn’t it. What’s much less speculative is, for example, that action scenes in GoT are often lame, compared to other shows that have similar action (once again – “Vikings”). It may be the HBO thing, because action scenes in “Rome” were also far from impressive, but it certainly doesn’t have to do anything with the budget.

See, you have to consider all the things that Game of Thrones has to spend money on that many other shows do not. For example, the cast on this show is massive. There are far more speaking roles and important characters than on just about any other show on television (and that's after they clipped the cast down dramatically from the books). Then there's location shooting. Unlike many shows, Game of Thrones isn't restricted to one city or set or even island. They film in multiple countries and varying cities and country areas and have to design new and intricate sets each season. And that's not even considering the cost of making costumes (sometimes several for each character), armor, weapons, and set dressings, all of which contribute to making this one of the most beautiful shows on television. Oh, and did I mention all of the CGI and similar work that goes into creating the dragons, direwolves, epic vistas, weather effects, white walkers, giants, and on and on and on?

And how about time? Time costs money too, especially for a show like this one. They have a limited amount of time in each location and they have to maximize it. If you want to know why fight scenes on Thrones are sometimes lame or mediocre, look no further. Choreographing complex and awesome fights takes a lot of time, practice, and repetition. That's something this show often does't have, and the amount of time a show has comes down to the budget. Every day they're in each location, they have to pay cast, crew, extras, fees for where they're filming, food for everyone involved, and more.

To say that some of your examples are non-budget aspects is a bit ludicrous. Do you know why it's cheaper to cast Dagmer than Reek? Because Dagmer shows up for one season and is, at best, a guest role. Reek, on the other hand, has to be someone who will become a cast regular, which means you're going to have to hire a better actor and negotiate for a longer period of time. You're also going to have to pay him more for the extra days he works, and he'll probably command a higher salary than the relative no-name you can cast for the recurring guest role of Dagmer.

Further, you have to start considering that, given all the time and budget constraints, they can really only expect to put out ten episodes a season. That naturally limits how much detail you can put into the story. You can't spend too much extra time adding scenes and details, because that means extra days on set, which means more money. You know what that leads to? Streamlining. Jeyne was turned into Talisa because explaining who Jeyne Westerling was and introducing her family (as you would probably have to do for the story to work) means more time, a few extra recurring guest spots, potentially new locations (like The Crag), and more.

Comparing this series to your average A movie makes little sense either. Your average A movie is an hour and a half to two hours long. You do realize how much easier it is to get two hours of good footage with 70 million than it is to get nine to ten hours, yes? If you don't, well, you probably shouldn't compare the two. If you do, you wouldn't have made the comparison to begin with.

Look, I don't want to defend everything that D&D have done. I think that mistakes have been made, and they do drop the ball on occasion. But to pretend that this isn't the most complex show on television with regards to cast, sets, costumes, and effects is totally disingenuous. Most people considered this series utterly unfilmable, and they've somehow made it both legitimately coherent and legitimately good. That, in and of itself, is a ridiculous testament to what a great job they've done. It's not perfect, and it never will be, but you really need to stop pretending that all of it is on D&D. They're working under a metric shitton of constraints that I'm sure the average fan has no understanding of.

[DaveSumm]

I think it's worth remembering that, while as book readers we can all imagine a superior show that stays close to the novels, that show would risk losing ratings. It's probably better to view D&D as the people in charge of straddling the line between faithfully adapting aSoIaF and achieving good ratings for HBO. While I'm sure most of us would prefer a faithful show, I'd take the one we've got over the show not existing or getting cancelled.

[zeppelincheetah]

I thought the episode was very well done. The events were similar enough to the book to keep me satisfied. The only part that bothered me is Jorah and Dario's taking over Yunkai. IIRC in the book they sneak in through some sewer. The fighting there looks cheaply made, more similar looking to fighting on a stage than to fighting on a big budget show.

[Honourable Ser]

I thought the episode was very well done. The events were similar enough to the book to keep me satisfied. The only part that bothered me is Jorah and Dario's taking over Yunkai. IIRC in the book they sneak in through some sewer. The fighting there looks cheaply made, more similar looking to fighting on a stage than to fighting on a big budget show.

That's Meereen where they go in through a sewer, in the books Yunkai is taken via an off screen battle that I'd have loved to see. But the fighting was excellent in this one, as many people have commented. The three individual styles were fantastic and Jorah and Daario were like poetry in motion!

[Miodrag]

I’m afraid you forgot security. Someone has to guard them on sets. Traveling arrangements also, they don’t come gratis, you know.

Now for real: you in the movie making business? Casting business? Any business connected to films or TV? Or you’re just trying to sound like you're familiar with the industry, while in fact you never approached it closer than reading about it?

What’s the point of argument if your arguing that casting two actors for a season each is inevitably cheaper than casting one actor for two seasons? What’s the point of arguing about Jeyne/Talisa, if you claim they didn't have the time for Jeyne’s backstory, and yet they had the time for Talisa’s (I mean, her monologue about her brother was like the longest scene in season two outside of “Blackwater”)? They put Talisa from Volantis without actually filming Volantis, but you claim we have to consider potentially filming The Crag because of Jeyne (not to mention there's no The Crag in the books, either) – how is anyone to responde to that?

You read my post and concluded I was comparing GoT with A movies. Really?!

And, listen, I’m far from sensitive, so I don’t mind when someone uses a little bit of trash-talk. But, if you try too hard to sound credible, you’re the one who’s going to end up looking ludicrous.

[HouseLark]

Franz Kafka ordered all of his works to be burned after he dies. Luckily, his best friend went against Kafka’s wish, and the humanity didn’t loose his novels, which are among the most influential in the 20^th century. Of course, it doesn’t mean Kafka hold his own work in a low regard. And there was no money involved, so his “verdict” over his books is surely more noble than selling the copyrights to some other medium. But, authors tend to have strange relations with their work. Tolstoy had an intense love-hate relation with many of his novels. Even if he died hating his "The Kreutzer Sonata" and "The Death of Ivan Ilyich", I can’t help but look at those novels as a literature triumphs.

Legally, you’re right, nothing stands in the way of D&D to do whatever they want with the show. But, GRRM didn’t sell his creativity, as you claim. He sold the rights to an adaptation, but not to the source material. So, my respect for Martin’s genius remains with the novels. It’s D&D who didn’t earn my respect, because of the way they adapted something I consider a masterpiece. They were inside their rights to reject any notion they should respect GRRM's genius, but it doesn't change my impression on their work.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make: I don't doubt that 1) Martin likes, probably loves, his work and 2) it is a work of unarguable genius within the fantasy genre and very good in terms of fiction in general. My point was that Martin is a lot less precious about his work than some fans. The comparison with Kafka isn't apt since he was depressed and wasn't trying to protect the integrity of his work, he just thought it was crap. Alan Moore, on the other hand, likes his work and believes in the integrity of it so deeply that he will not put his name to derivative works such as film adaptations. It's nothing to do with my respect for either Moore or Martin both of whom I respect greatly, but the price that they think their creativity is worth. So Martin did sell his creativity, he sold the characters, the world, and the story and personally I don't think that's a bad thing, most writers sell their creativity as a rule. If you don't think Martin is selling his creativity, take a look at his arguments against unauthorised fan fiction which he claims exploits his creative works - all GoT is is an authorised exploitation of his creativity. Again, I don't respect him any less, he's acting like a working writer and even if D&D shaft the TV show beyond repair the books will stand alone. But never forget, Martin endorsed this and continues to endorse it knowing full well he would lose control of his world to some degree.

[Miodrag]

Maybe I did miss your point, after all. And I guess you're right in the sense that GRRM's decision to sell the rights to HBO - however understandable in our day and age - did expose his work to the risk of being cheapened. If it's any consolation to him, I'd probably make the same mistake, because, prior to GoT, I had much more faith in HBO than I have now.

[Honourable Ser]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[PatrickStormborn]

Except I already did that in the "How would you rate episode 309" thread, where I clearly stated that Breaking Bad has Game of Thrones beat in both depth and artistic integrity. I never claimed that the show is one of the all-time greats, and still don't consider it to be GOAT status. There's nothing wrong with judging the show as an adaptation, but it is a TV show, first and foremost, and thus should be compared and judged by the same standards as any of the shows you mentioned above. In fact, that's my main basis of judgment when I try to judge the show as a whole.

Trust me: if the show was as bad as some people like to think, it would not be receiving near unanimous levels of critical praise from many critics that have never read the books.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly judge the show in comparison with other TV shows. In some areas, the show is great and surpasses that of most TV shows (I've already praised the cast countless times, and the soundtrack is my favourite of all time). But in other areas (writing and characterisation), the show falls flat when compared to truly great TV shows.

But here's the crucial part: the show would not fall flat if it was closer to the books. Season 1 was superb television because it had complex characters and a storyline that subverted expectations. But in seasons 2 and 3 the writers have turned towards far more shallow characterisation by sticking with tropes and cliches (the same ones that GRRM so memorably subverted). Last season, Tyrion and Arya's character development pretty much stopped in episode 4, and Arya only really began to grow as a character around episode 4 this season, and Tyrion in episode 8. I don't even want to talk about the mess made with Jon, Catelyn and Daenerys. Dany's storyline recovered for the first seven episodes this season, but her characterisation is still completely inconsistent.

Then there are the problems with nudity and violence. The great thing about HBO is that there are less restrictions with nudity, which should make the show feel more natural. But instead the nudity just makes the show feel completely fake and cheap - how many scenes have there been where the woman is completely naked whilst the man is dressed? A great example of natural nudity in the books was when Catelyn got out of bed naked in front of Maester Aemon as it was used to reveal a lot about Catelyn's character (particularly her pragmatism). But for some reason they didn't bother to include that (Michelle Fairley has even said that D&D gave her a no-nudity clause and that she was willing to be nude, so make of that what you will), instead choosing to add naked sex workers who added extremely little to the plot and simply made the show far more misogynistic (essentially weakening the narratives of the female characters).

There are also problems with the use of violence, such as the way swordfights and battles are glorified, but most importantly the gratuitous nature of a lot of the violence. Before season 3 I didn't think it was a huge problem (apart from the use of sexual violence in season 2), but with the repetitive Theon scenes it has become a serious issue.

Violence in the books was used to present important themes - particularly the devastation created by war. So why have we not seen much (if any) of that? I'm sure non-readers could be forgiven for not realising the true destruction caused by the War of Five Kings, as the show has avoided demonstrating the effects of war on the smallfolk. And I can't exactly imagine how it would have been difficult to use a few extras to make the Riverlands look war-torn. Perhaps if they had been less desperate to give Theon, Podrick and Tyrion screentime, there would have been more opportunities to truly show the effects of war on the realm.

I've already spoken about the characterisation of gay and female characters in other threads, but I feel the issue needs repeating. Renly and Loras have both been unnecessarily reduced from complex characters into negative gay stereotypes. The issue of stereotype vs non-stereotype is always controversial when discussing the presentation of minority or oppressed groups, but it is incredibly important when we consider that D&D actively chose to reduce Renly and Loras' characterisation to make them more stereotypically "gay". This is even more problematic considering that D&D also erased Xaro Xhoan Daxos' homosexuality and coincidentally increased his masculinity.

Then there is the presentation of female characters. Catelyn has been side-lined in favour of Robb. D&D have said they gave Robb more screentime because they liked Richard Madden as an actor, which is certainly not okay with me. In the first season Cat was certainly very different from book!Cat, but she was still at least a character with strong and consistent characterisation. In the second season, suddenly she is pushed further into the background and her ideas are given to other characters. By the third season, she is presented as a minor character. She wasn't even given any additional scenes with her brother that could have been taken from AGoT, ACoK or ASoS... and yet D&D found time for a (poorly written) Olenna/Tywin scene, and other scenes between characters that came across like poor fanfiction.

Sansa's arc was significantly reduced too by the removal of Dontos. Similarly to Catelyn it simply made her look more like a passive character. However, I will note that I wholeheartedly approve of the decision to create a friendship between Sansa and Shae. However, I don't believe this should have had such an impact on Tyrion and Sansa's characterisation. Why could they not have shown Shae as being nice to Sansa, but still kept her characterisation around Tyrion as it was in the books? Why did Shae have to replace Dontos?

I could continue, but this post is already far longer than I ever intended it to be. I will comment however on your last point. I'm sure many critics genuinely do love the show. But for critics who are non-readers I can't help but imagine that many of them are so overwhelmed by the scale of the show that they don't analyse it in the same way that they would be able to analyse other TV shows. After all, it would be extremely hard to accurately judge the consistency of characterisation in a show where you struggle to remember all the characters.

No doubt many will respond to this post with the usual "UGH WHY ARE YOU EVEN WATCHING???" But I hope many will realise the validity of my points and understand that the reason I continue to watch is because many of these mistakes can still be fixed. It is not too late for D&D to start focusing on the long-term quality of the show, although that point is fast approaching.

ETA:

Well, judging by 3x07, maybe they do know better. Har har.

They're the ones who chose to have extremely little plot advancement take place in that episode, so it can hardly be used as an example to show that "they do know better".

[Honourable Ser]

^ Too long did not read.

[OberynBlackfyre]

I think they pulled it off in a lot of ways, except completely agree with Ran about the lack of emphasis on the actual atmosphere that George created in the books. As a horror writer/fan, I was soo happy to see George's skills in horror appear again within the books. This was a scene that could have went down on history, as much as the famous shower scene from "Psycho", yet they for some reason decided that the music was not needed and that there should have not been any foreboding?

Ran, you hit it on the head when you said they decided to play it safe with just "getting it done" rather than actually acting it like the book did

[Mr Fixit]

(I've already praised the cast countless times, and the soundtrack is my favourite of all time)

Soundtrack is fantastic, no doubt. That said, ever seen reimagined Galactica? That was truly an unparalleled masterpiece among TV soundtracks. Bear McCreary is unbelievably good.

[HouseHarrison]

I loved the RW in the show, and only have two real nitpicks to it:

1.) Roose Bolton living up to his name. He bolts away after Cat slaps him then bolts back in to stab Robb. It was a tad awkward both times.

2.) No table flip. This was probably because there was really no show-equivalent to do it but still would have liked some sort of sacrifice from even a canon fodder extra who simply is loyal to his lord.

3.) The song really wasn't played as long as it should have, imo. I know it doesn't play through the whole massacre in the book, but really I would have liked it if it continued (even as just show-only background music) during most of the massacre if not all of it.

4.) Roose using a dagger instead of a badass sword.

[Dragonstoned]

zzzzzzzzzzz

^ Too long did not read.

Don't think you're presenting the best image of 'anti-book-purists', mate. If you can't handle posts that are more than a couple of paragraphs long this forum is not the place for you.

[Pinkie Baelish]

<snip>

I disagree a lot with you in general regarding the show, but I like how you brought your views forward in a structured manner. And you're right, the show has notable problems that I do agree are an issue, and it would definitely be better and potential GOAT status if they followed the books to a closer extent. I don't have time now to debate your entire post, but I just want to state my view on the show really quickly: the show is not on the same level as Breaking Bad, The Sopranos or The Wire. But I would wager that it is, at least in my opinion, better than 75 - 80% of the shows currently on TV. I would even rank the show's first two seasons as making the show one of the top ten shows on TV at the time.

^ Too long did not read.

Heh, the words "too long did not read" don't really have a place in a forum about A Song of Ice and Fire ;)

[Alia of the knife]

Not really trying to sound cynical here, but I think it's about perspective, especially historical perspective as I think there is a tendency to think such things never happened before.

When I read the book, I wasn't shocked because I was already aware of the ruthlessness of that time period, as well as the story of the "Black Dinner."

There was also the gruesome murder of David Rizzio, Queen Mary of Scotlands secretary and later, Lord Darnley.

When Frankenstein was first shown in the cinema in 1931, women fainted in the aisles, as well as when "Rhett Butler" uttered, "frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn."

Or, when in "I Claudius," Caligula cut his child out of the womb of his sister because he was afraid it would become a rival "god."

You didn't see it of course because it was all still done on stage, but the implications were clear in what was happening to her.

In a later episode, you had a Roman soldier rape Caligula's young daughter, (under twelve), so he wouldn't have to kill a virgin, and this after Caligula's wife and infant were also slain.

I admit I did not like the murder of a pregnant Talisa, as if the current events were not already brutal enough. But stabbing a pregnant woman in the stomach, seemed a little too "Helter Skelter/Sharon Tate for me, a crime that still sickens me though it happened before I was born, but close enough in modern history to still be disturbing considering some of the perpetrators are still alive.

But, in Martins world, he references history and there is a method to his madness, whereas I have my doubts when ratings and revenue are the driving force rather than the crafting of a well balanced story of "song" and tragedy.

So I'm not so sure that D&D aren't catering to the low information individual, who would not read Martins books, or be aware of historical perspectives and the points that Martin is trying to convey.