[Book spoilers]: GoT producers expect 8 seasons

[Lord Elrosir]

Stannis would be a horrible King. And that is my opinion from book observation alone.

[George Sapp]

I love the show but if they catch up with grrm I will wait until the books are out. I'm not getting spoiled by D&D.

But damn...I remember back when agot was first announced. The last thing on my mind was them catching up with the books. I was hoping for three seasons and to see the red wedding and oberyn vs gregor. Then I thought hbo would drop it like they did rome. Now I am really concern that its going to pass the books.

D&D and should really think about adding flash backs to the show just to give grrm more time. It would draw out the seasons and give us some of the coolest scenes yet. Summerhall, the trident, the tourney of harrenhal, Jaime killing aerys, etc. They going to have to start pushing rhaegar, lyanna, arthur dayne and the blackfyres eventually, right?

[George Sapp]

Oops double post

[boojam]

On a side note and a hobby horse of mine:

"DEADLINE: What was the first rude awakening in transferring one of your big ideas to the screen?

WEISS: In the first season, when we were shooting constantly, sometimes with four first units going at the same time, being naïve as to how television works, we took a movie-driven notion and thought we would write the scripts and be on set every day. When you have four sets going in three different countries, that’s not physically possible. We realized slowly what it meant to be working in a television world, where the time pressures are so intense and yet you’re still trying to deliver a viewing experience that at least visually is more informed by feature film."

This kind of reinforces my worries that Dave and Dan are so 'in charge' , that some of the lapses we see and really some sloppiness, is due to two guys keeping too many balls in the air at one time. Don't get me wrong, I could think of dozens of producers who would have made an absolute disaster out of the material.

Maybe they should bring Bryan forward and give him more responsibility , I know he has more, but really more decision making. Frankly I think they need more help than that, though one has to chose one's captains carefully.

I know they , as far as we know, meet budgets and time schedules, but I think they have paid some price for it.

Even tho I , as a reader, think it is an excellent show.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I think they're right to keep their core team as small as it is. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and all that.

[Draco_Dracul]

Stannis would be a horrible King. And that is my opinion from book observation alone.

He could be a decent King if he came from a well established dynasty, and ascended without dispute in a time of piece. Despite what many on this board will tell you being well liked IS an important attribute for a king to have especially in a realm as vast, and diverse as Westeros. Fear can serve as a substitute as seen by the fact that it was united by the fear of dragons.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

Stannis is one of the absolute nutjobs.

Stannis certainly has issues, but I think nutjob is a stretch for him. He's at least the one claimant to ever admit that he has a duty to Westeros rather than the other way around.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I think they're right to keep their core team as small as it is. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and all that.

Is there *anything* that the show producers that have done that you think is less than optimal? I'm not sure I can take your opinion seriously any more, because you seem to defend everything. Are they doing the perfect show? Have they made any choices you'd take issue with? Is there anything that they can improve upon?

[Khal-a-bunga]

Is there *anything* that the show producers that have done that you think is less than optimal? I'm not sure I can take your opinion seriously any more, because you seem to defend everything. Are they doing the perfect show? Have they made any choices you'd take issue with? Is there anything that they can improve upon?

Plenty. They could often transition from scene-to-scene better than they do now. They could [have] write [written] more 'two-people-in-a-room' scenes between characters outside of King's Landing (would have been nice to get a scene between Edmure & Cat, for instance). I don't know that Iceland was a great choice to film the scenes north of the Wall, which has reverberated throughout the Night's Watch story line in seasons two and three, though there's no denying the landscape is beautiful. I find Shae - the actress and her writing - problematic. There are several instances where an additional line or two would have sufficed to clear up some confusion for non-readers (and readers alike, occasionally). And the list goes on.

Just because I choose to temper all the ridiculous negativity around here by maintaining a positive outlook on the show doesn't mean that I don't have my own issues. I just don't often feel the need to constantly bring them up because A.) I usually respond more in speculative threads, and B.) There's enough bitching around here as it is, and the majority of my complaints are minor or technical, and C.) I don't really care all that much about changes made during the adaptation process.

I was an HBO fan before I read A Game of Thrones back in 2003 (right around the time I enrolled in film school), so I've wanted to see a show based on this book series for a long time. And it's been something I thought about for a long time. And during the summer of 2006, when I was working as an intern on a show called The Black Donnellys, I realized what a difficult, collaborative, expensive, and time-consuming job it is to bring even a moderately high-quality product to fruition. That Game of Thrones ended up on HBO, and has turned out as incredibly well as it has, is a pretty phenomenal achievement. I mean, by Martin's own admission (and he knows a thing or two about writing for television, and producing for television), he wrote this series to be unfilmable!

People around here like to drop these, 'The books are better...' comments consistently, as if this is some revelation. Of course the books are better. That's the case 99.9% of the time when something is adapted from the page to the screen. But even the books aren't perfect. And I never expected them to be. And I never expected the show to be, either. That doesn't mean that I just blatantly ignore the flaws; just that I don't see them as egregiously as many here seem to. Every show has flaws. My top five favorite shows of all-time (The Wire, The Shield, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men) are littered with flaws. My favorite movies all have flaws - plot inconsistencies, continuity errors, some occasional shoddy writing, etc. But most of those flaws aren't worth discussing, because they are things that are inherent to the medium, and the amount of things they do right is what's ultimately more important (for me, anyway).

In any case, I don't really care if 'you're not sure' you can take my opinion seriously anymore, so put me on your ignore list and be done with it. There are plenty of posters who are all negative, all the time, if that's more your speed.

[Werthead]

I noticed that in the interview. I honestly thought they were joking but then realized there was no hints of sarcasm about the whole thing. It really stretches the imagination to think that Theon's story was what they were most proud of in Season 3.

I think they were talking about his arc in Season 2 as well, which appears to have been very well-received. For his Season 3 arc, I think there were two very good moments (Theon breaking down in the tunnel and realising how far he's fallen and his acceptance of the 'Reek' name) but the rest was fairly disposable.

[Pinkie Baelish]

For his Season 3 arc, I think there were two very good moments (Theon breaking down in the tunnel and realising how far he's fallen and his acceptance of the 'Reek' name) but the rest was fairly disposable.

Same here, but being a book reader, I also loved the flaying scene. But I think it would have frustrated the Unsullied even more. It served as a really memorable introduction(proper introduction) to Ramsay, and it made me squirm, so it served its purpose.

[PatrickStormborn]

Stannis certainly has issues, but I think nutjob is a stretch for him. He's at least the one claimant to ever admit that he has a duty to Westeros rather than the other way around.

He certainly isn't. Dany says a very similar thing about having a duty to bring justice to Westeros. Renly at least thought similarly, as he chose to rebel against Joffrey and reject Stannis because he thought he would be a better king than either of them.

The only nutjob currently contending for the throne is Euron, but Stannis is closer to being a nutjob than any of the other current contenders.

[Lord Elrosir]

Lol, Stannis is the guy who thought outlawing prostitution in Westeros was a good idea. He'd be Maegor the Cruel come again (sans the multiple wives).

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

He certainly isn't. Dany says a very similar thing about having a duty to bring justice to Westeros. Renly at least thought similarly, as he chose to rebel against Joffrey and reject Stannis because he thought he would be a better king than either of them.

The only nutjob currently contending for the throne is Euron, but Stannis is closer to being a nutjob than any of the other current contenders.

Dany wants to bring justice for the usurping of her family's legacy which ended with possibly the worst king ever. She also hasn't been to Westeros and refuses to hear the truth about her father.

Renly I could see, but his duty is to his brother, who he would've crushed to rule in his place. Renly's also dead so hardly competing at this current time.

I'm no Stannis lover but out of all the possible candidates (minus Jon) he'd be my pick.

[Pinkie Baelish]

I think we can all agree that this thread has now followed the first principle of Boardology.

[Thaune]

Plenty. They could often transition from scene-to-scene better than they do now. They could [have] write [written] more 'two-people-in-a-room' scenes between characters outside of King's Landing (would have been nice to get a scene between Edmure & Cat, for instance). I don't know that Iceland was a great choice to film the scenes north of the Wall, which has reverberated throughout the Night's Watch story line in seasons two and three, though there's no denying the landscape is beautiful. I find Shae - the actress and her writing - problematic. There are several instances where an additional line or two would have sufficed to clear up some confusion for non-readers (and readers alike, occasionally). And the list goes on.

Just because I choose to temper all the ridiculous negativity around here by maintaining a positive outlook on the show doesn't mean that I don't have my own issues. I just don't often feel the need to constantly bring them up because A.) I usually respond more in speculative threads, and B.) There's enough bitching around here as it is, and the majority of my complaints are minor or technical, and C.) I don't really care all that much about changes made during the adaptation process.

I was an HBO fan before I read A Game of Thrones back in 2003 (right around the time I enrolled in film school), so I've wanted to see a show based on this book series for a long time. And it's been something I thought about for a long time. And during the summer of 2006, when I was working as an intern on a show called The Black Donnellys, I realized what a difficult, collaborative, expensive, and time-consuming job it is to bring even a moderately high-quality product to fruition. That Game of Thrones ended up on HBO, and has turned out as incredibly well as it has, is a pretty phenomenal achievement. I mean, by Martin's own admission (and he knows a thing or two about writing for television, and producing for television), he wrote this series to be unfilmable!

People around here like to drop these, 'The books are better...' comments consistently, as if this is some revelation. Of course the books are better. That's the case 99.9% of the time when something is adapted from the page to the screen. But even the books aren't perfect. And I never expected them to be. And I never expected the show to be, either. That doesn't mean that I just blatantly ignore the flaws; just that I don't see them as egregiously as many here seem to. Every show has flaws. My top five favorite shows of all-time (The Wire, The Shield, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men) are littered with flaws. My favorite movies all have flaws - plot inconsistencies, continuity errors, some occasional shoddy writing, etc. But most of those flaws aren't worth discussing, because they are things that are inherent to the medium, and the amount of things they do right is what's ultimately more important (for me, anyway).

As someone who puts The Wire and then GoT as the best two TV shows I've ever watched, I applaud your post.

Personally, I've read the first book in 1998, instantly loved it, became a fan.

I'm the biggest ASOAIF fan I know... but even I'm starting to get annoyed with other book-readers nitpicking every scene

and doing the famous "that's not how it was in the book" quote.

[boojam]

I think they're right to keep their core team as small as it is. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and all that.

Well there is the delegation of authority.

I notice early this year that Dave and Dan met with George in Santa Fe , as they had before , but this time they brought Bryan Cogman with them.

I don't think they talked about the weather, I am sure they talked turkey with GRRM , because coming up are a lot of translation of prose narrative to visual dramatic narrative and a lot of problems to solve.

I think most of us agree that Cogman has done a fine job of teleplay writing (in addition to his other duties) , I suspect , tho I don't know, that Bryan is going to be given more responsibility on a footing with Dave and Dan.

I think this is a good thing.

[Werthead]

even I'm starting to get annoyed with other book-readers nitpicking every scene and doing the famous "that's not how it was in the book" quote.

I think complaining about people saying, "That's not how it was in the book, even though they couldn't do it like in the book because it would cost $5 million and take up a whole episode," (i.e. skipping the Battle of the Green Fork) is a valid thing to do. When people insist that the TV show has to be the book exactly on the screen regardless of cost or practicality, that's simply being very silly.

However, the "That's not how it was in the book, even though it was a lot better in the book and they could easily have done it on TV," complaint is perfectly valid. The Qhorin storyline could have been presented pretty much as it was on the page and it would have worked better, would have been more emotionally powerful and would probably have been cheaper (as it would have taken fewer scenes to film than the interminable 'Ygritte and Jon arse around in the snow for no apparent reason for yet another episode' spiel). In that sense, complaining about the TV producers doing something objectively inferior to what was on the page is fine.

[Weeping Sore]

People around here like to drop these, 'The books are better...' comments consistently, as if this is some revelation. Of course the books are better. That's the case 99.9% of the time when something is adapted from the page to the screen. But even the books aren't perfect. And I never expected them to be. And I never expected the show to be, either. That doesn't mean that I just blatantly ignore the flaws; just that I don't see them as egregiously as many here seem to. Every show has flaws. My top five favorite shows of all-time (The Wire, The Shield, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men) are littered with flaws. My favorite movies all have flaws - plot inconsistencies, continuity errors, some occasional shoddy writing, etc. But most of those flaws aren't worth discussing, because they are things that are inherent to the medium, and the amount of things they do right is what's ultimately more important (for me, anyway).

There are plenty of examples of screen adaptations transcending the source material on the page, but usually it happens when the book in question is not truly great. The Godfather, Psycho, or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre are good examples of this.

Even with 80 episodes, ASoIaF was always going to be an enormous challenge to adapt, but I feel like GoT the series is getting more assured as it goes along. Take the nearly silent scene with the small council rearranging chairs. It is exactly the type of thing you would never write in a book, but it works well on screen as it deftly compresses relationships visually. Most of the new King's Landing scenes are quite good; I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle Jaime's early arrival for that reason.

Yet no matter how good an original scene on this series is, some book purists will be howling because they can't help but think of their pet scene from the book that could be taking its place. (Although to be fair, as you acknowledge, there are plenty of things to find fault with as well)

[Frumpus]

What exactly is left of the Hound and Arya arc? All they have to do following the Red Wedding is a bit of travelling, the fight at the Inn, and then Arya leaves. There is no way they can drag that over a whole season.

It would make more sense to end the season with each of the Stark children with their mentors - Bran meeting Bloodraven, Arya arriving at the House of Black and White, and Sansa with Littlefinger. Why create unnecessary Arya/Hound interaction and delay Arya's arrival at the House of Black and White when there is already too much material for season five?

Unnecessary my ass. Did you even read the books? It was a powerful emotion-packed storyline. I can see Arya arriving in Braavos in episode 5.10 but to imply that she gets there halfway through is ridiculous.