[Book & Show Spoilers] Show Vs. Books (Grantland Article)

[daoloth]

I'm very familiar with television production, having worked on a show called The Black Donnellys through an internship in 2006, and several other shows that never went to series. I'm also an avid fan of good television, and would disagree with you wholeheartedly. I'd disagree with you on a point-by-point basis, except you haven't actually made any points. Blanket criticism, which is oft relied upon here, isn't actual criticism. That would imply specific examples, reasoning, comparisons with elements from other works that you consider both better and worse. The same kind of thing you're lambasting McPherson for... Perhaps your understanding of irony isn't as clear as you think.

Ok. Here is how the show is not so good compared to the books. Random two examples ... top of my head

Remember the scene from 3.10 with Theon and Ramsay? How much does it cost in writer's pay to come up with what was done. And how much more does it cost to add the little detail about his childhood friend who Roose killed but now Theon will replace. Simple backstory.

How much more would it cost to replace Talisa with Jeyne, supplant their lovey-dovey love story with a more realistic one that grows around an accidental marriage but which - just as in books - does somehow translate to an actual feeling. It could include some additional tension since Westerlings are Lannister bannermen which is more natural than this random Volantis chick. Also that would be more consistent with a positive portrayal od Robb and make him betray Frey's for honour (as in the books) and not irresponsible love.

Here is how the show is not so good compared to other good tv shows

First of all inconsistency (i mentioned it already) in the level of detail in Westeros and Essos. The show attempts to portray a differentiation of cultures across different lands AND invents two fictional languages but manages to completely mess up important aspect of English language such as dialects and accents despite referring to that a number of times (m'lord scene with Arya). Compare it to the wire for example and its use of language and slang. There is also no real distinction in Essos that helps with memorization. People in Qarth look vaguely the same as in Pentos, Yunkai or Astapor. I can understand not doing the whole mustachios with bells thing (Dothraki) or trating Daario literally. I am not a fan of that but why cant the Tyroshi be recognizabe. At least the remaining Dothraki can be set apart from the rest. Hand made laces and mail for Westeros but tablecloth capes instead of tokars? Not to mention that both Valyrian and Dothraki (and the language for Defiance) sound too similar as if it was such a problem to go on with "alternative Earth" idea of Martin and use distribution of languages on Earth as a basis.

Simple things.

How about the overabundance of gratuitous sex and nudity - that is a very good measure of the quaity of the show. Good shows take it into account and manage to pull it off tastefully. Even sneak in some straight male nudity ( a great example again from Rome - Mark Anthony during his "bath")in a way that makes sense. A bad show will have it arranged ad hoc and often without consideration for actors so while many primary characters won't be too keen (Emilia Clarke ) a lot of extras showing off tits are necessary to keep up.

How about the major script - why are there so many new one-dimensional characters ? The original characters usually have some depth - not the made up like Ros and Talisa and "revisited" characters such as Show Shae.

I could go on and on about how badly a lot of scenes were handled even comparing them to the books. I assure you that I understand very well how the adaptation and production processes work. But there are so many which are simply acted out as if by wooden mannequins were thrown together. How about the whole season 2 finale. One rushed scene after another. How about most of the scenes with Jon north of the wall. Clumsy and random. That is the one thing I dont want to get into beause I'll tear all of my hair out before I'm done.

What about the in your face cheesines. Stannis the mannis charging the walls of Kings Landing? Most scenes that contain prostitutes - acting, direction, not the nudity. And how about the clumsy resolution of character development between Cat and Robb - something that was extensively changed. And what is on with Dany - those speeches, crowdsurfing? Wasn't she supposed to be like Rheagar rather than Princess Diana? Where's the subtlety and detail. Some shows can do it on an entirely different level - take Mad men for example. And why exactly is The Walking Dead the best idea to portray the wights and the Others? Or whatever it was that inspired those scary Ewoks in the pilot.

Don't ask for points good man because I will give you plenty. You're not the only one with a bit of understanding and passion.

In the end it is not that GoT is a bad show. It is NOT. It is a good show. But the question what makes it good is what we are talking here about. I agree that a lot of the scenography and costumes are great. This and casting is one of the main reasons why I watch it. But the most important element which drives the show is the story and how the characters are arranged. It's only after the story that the actors come and then the rest. Neither the actors nor the props nor the beautiful scenery could not help if the story was bad. If you have doubts compare

Lost and Flash Forward

The X Files and Fringe

Mad Men and Pan-Am (was that the name of the series?)

Deadwood and Hell on Wheels

and something that might be quite tricky since both shows have strong points that the other doesnt

Forbrydelsen and the Killing

That's what I am talking about.

[Sphinx The Riddle]

However, in defense of the Grantland website....I highly encourage everyone to read the Andy Greenwald's recaps of the show. He is an avowed non-reader but I find his perspective really interesting and increases my enjoyment of the show.

http://www.grantland.../andy-greenwald

100% agree... one of my favorite reviewers to look forward to after an episode

[Khal-a-bunga]

@ daoloth

I had a long, detailed post but I got an error message after posting and it was gone...

Thanks for your thoughts, though I mostly disagree.

[Strong Belwas!]

Yeah...It would be so exciting if we could have an argument between McPherson and Strong Belwas. I wonder how it would turn out :D

I think it would end with Strong Belwas eating liver and onions.

[daoloth]

I heard that most long and detailed posts really like being copied to clipboard before posting.

[pantouflas]

I love the books and have read them all twice - that's why I'm here. I also love the show because 1) it got me into the books in the first place, 2) it is great tv, and at last fantasy that everyone can enjoy.

But the guys over on Grantland are critics. They are supposed to judge the merits of a work of art. And they are doing their job rather well I think.

Look, I love the books but they are not great literature. (To prevent the usual reply, neither is Tolkien). They are too long, focused on story rather than character, they have tedious language, endless food descriptions, badly-written sex scenes, and they have few important things to say about the human condition. The last two books fare particularly bad on these points. But they are great fantasy! And far more enjoyable than Dostoyevsky. As far as genre fiction goes, they are easily among the best. I could write so much more about their worth, but I think we all agree here.

On the other hand, the tv show is not great film-making either. The dialogue is often clunky, the story-telling is all over the place, the sex scenes are often cringe-worthy, they cannot show enough of the scope of the book, and it often resorts to cheap gimmicks and spelling out everything for those who can't pay attention. But it is great tv! And far more enjoyable than Tarkovsky. As far as tv series go, it is easily among the best.

So why can't we all just agree that both versions of ASOIAF are highly enjoyable by genre readers or tv junkies, and by literature critics or film buffs alike? That's the real beauty and value of them...

(By the way, I am a philosophy lecturer and amateur screenwriter, though I enjoy good tv and sf/fantasy on my free time. Good is always good, no matter the form or medium.)

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but there's no doubt in my mind that reading the books before watching the TV series is detrimental overall to the experience. Whereas watching it first and then reading is actually beneficial.

[Peasant Rebel Leader]

Interesting commentary, and he has some points, but in the end, he's very subjective. Let me ask some questions: Does 'cutting it down' to the narrative not just devolve to tropes or anti-tropes? you look at the cause of effect and create 'logical' plotting. From A follows B. And then you do this in a seasonal format. But doesn't that result in 'introducing the big bad of the season in episode 1 or 2' and 'killing him off in the end'. This escalates quite quickly in all standard tv shows and I heard even somewhat in Breaking Bad (though I haven't watched it, it's on my list, but I want to be able to concentrate on it). In the end, the stakes are ridicilously high.

Game of Thrones does the opposite, it teases out stuff like Joff's Death, the Red Wedding which would be the natural end arc of season 2 Robb. Hell, even Dany's Westeros Invasion is the best example. Instead, Game of Thrones doesn't go for logical plotting, but emotional or rational arcs. It's rational for Tyrion to put Shae not in the Red Keep, but in the city, it's how he should act from what we know of the world and his family. Abbreviating it for a tv show works since the show never set up the world accordingly (and needs to work to be able to produce a tv show after all). Dany staying in Essos isn't logical from story plotting point of view, GRRM needs to get her to Westeros, but it's difficult since Dany wouldn't necessarily want it in-world, she's emotional about her life and the slaves and wants to stay. Hence the Meerenese Knot of setting up the circumstances that this might change.

In my mind, the show fails at all those 'emotional' plot points. I.e. I experienced Qarth as the 'Golden Cage' where it would be so easy to stay because there are no big threats (until she accepts the HoTU invitation), this part of the story in the books is great because of its inertia. Long story short, it seems that the reviewer doesn't like a story where "nothing" happens, nothing gets blown up and all.

Now, the Talisa-thing may be a counterpoint since this change brings in emotions and makes the stakes higher. It's not a 'logical plotting point' only! It's a good change, but this doesn't mean the original story would've been bad. They work from different angles and let us discuss things differently.