Season 4 Roundup

[boojam]

Rehearsal shots for what's undoubtedly the Purple Wedding have dribbled out (it's the Sept of Baelor set). You can even see some floral decorations around where the altar is.

The coolest thing is a blurry shot of Season 4 Jaime all Kingsguarded up again. His short hair--even shorter than it was in Season 1--is going to take some getting used to. (A moment of silence for Jaime's shaggy Season 3 haircut and beard.)

Except for some shots from Iceland and casting news not much in the way of photos , especially cast sightings, for weeks now.

(Seems , except for one casting blurb recently, a few castings have not been finished.)

(Seems Eugene Simons (Lancel Lannister) has just vanished, not even a cameo this year?)

I gather all the shooting is in Northern Ireland right now and will be moving to Croatia in about a week.

We know there will KL filming there but apparently , this year all Essos settings will be shot there.

[PatrickStormborn]

Do u guys think they will add Penny to the show?

D&D seem like the sort of fan who hated Penny, so I doubt they'll include her. But she's necessary for Tyrion's character growth.

[boojam]

D&D seem like the sort of fan who hated Penny, so I doubt they'll include her. But she's necessary for Tyrion's character growth.

As has been said, if that scene of her and her brother is shown in season 4 it will be a couple of stunt people in costume... no need to cast anyone (if they do) until season 5, so we are getting ahead of ourselves.

[Don Roberto]

I think it might be a case of avoiding showing her face so they can cast properly for later seasons.

Probably this. Same as they did with Jaqen.

[Ser Luke.]

D&D seem like the sort of fan who hated Penny, so I doubt they'll include her. But she's necessary for Tyrion's character growth.

Necessary? Not really...at all.

[Abaddon]

Necessary? Not really...at all.

Penny is a pretty important character for Tyrion in the books. Based on alterations to date and possible future alterations she might be diminished in importance in the show (or cut). But I wouldn't bet on it.

[PatrickStormborn]

Necessary? Not really...at all.

Penny challenges Tyrion's privilege and self-pity, but also leads to him being more compassionate and pro-active.

If she's not included, D&D will have to find a very creative way to advance Tyrion from where he was at the end of ASoS to where he is at the end of ADwD/beginning of TWoW.

[PhoenixFlame]

Penny challenges Tyrion's privilege and self-pity, but also leads to him being more compassionate and pro-active.

If she's not included, D&D will have to find a very creative way to advance Tyrion from where he was at the end of ASoS to where he is at the end of ADwD/beginning of TWoW.

I don't think he's all that more compassionate, he just gets attached to her. I could see Jorah challenging him on his self-pity. "Oh you think you have it bad? You're not the only one to fall in love with a gold digger and flee into exile, you know." Being a slave would make him realize how privileged he was.

[Newstar]

D&D seem like the sort of fan who hated Penny

Er, how do you figure? Have they made comments to that effect? Seems like a strange statement to make about them. I've seen fans who hate Penny of all fandom stripes; they don't really fall into one "type."

But she's necessary for Tyrion's character growth.

Mmm, I dunno about that. In the books, Penny was essential as Tyrion's Pet the Dog (tm TV Tropes), showing that no matter how awful he seems, he's Not That Far Gone After All. In the show, Tyrion's a much less darker character, as many have remarked on, so he might not need a Pet the Dog type character to show that There Is Still Good In Him (sorry).

On a more practical plot point, I remember PD being on record as hating doing stuff that made his disability the punchline...which, fair enough. That was fine through ASOS (and even AFFC, where Tyrion was absent), but if he still doesn't want to do that stuff, how is he going to cope with a whole storyline about winding up, however temporarily, as a dwarf performer whose survival depends on his ability to amuse others, and then as a slave in a grotesquerie? Tyrion spends much of ADWD in situations outside performing with Penny and being a slave, but still. Peter Dinklage signed on to do Tyrion when ADWD wasn't even finished yet, and I don't think he has read the books, so I'm curious as to how the writers will cross that bridge when they come to it (assuming the show even makes it that far).

I also doubt the pig/dog jousting is even filmable due to animal cruelty laws, so the whole jousting thing might be kaput regardless. That doesn't rule out Penny being some other kind of performer, though. I wonder if there's something to Tyrion's non-book line in 3x07 when Shae asks him to run away: "What am I going to do in Essos, juggle?" Juggling might serve.

I don't think he's all that more compassionate, he just gets attached to her.

Agreed.

[PhoenixFlame]

Maybe PD won't be super opposed to it because his character is acting to amuse a fictional audience--like, his character is playing a role that makes funnies of his condition, not his actual character doing dwarf humor to amuse us the real audience. Or maybe they just go with his tongue being more entertaining to the Essosi than his dwarfism.

I agree that he might not get quite as bad as he is in the books, thus not in much need for a morality pet or morality chain. Jorah can be his foil since they have some things in common. Both in relationships that ended in treachery, both needy, both obsessed with women they can't have, both disappointments to their fathers, both capable of doing shady stuff, both feeling like stood up and underappreciated advisers...

[Newstar]

Maybe PD won't be super opposed to it because his character is acting to amuse a fictional audience--like, his character is playing a role that makes funnies of his condition, not his actual character doing dwarf humor to amuse us the real audience. Or maybe they just go with his tongue being more entertaining to the Essosi than his dwarfism.

I guess we'll see. TV Tyrion to date has been no stranger to humiliation based on his dwarfism--the unending string of cracks about his height, the bit with the stool in 3x08--so maybe it won't be any kind of problem, but Tyrion's ADWD arc is really on another level than anything we've seen before.

[Colonel Green]

I also doubt the pig/dog jousting is even filmable due to animal cruelty laws, so the whole jousting thing might be kaput regardless.

They could uses ponies or something like that. They'll need something to trigger the Joffrey/Tyrion faceoff, anyway.

[1234567]

D&D seem like the sort of fan who hated Penny, so I doubt they'll include her. But she's necessary for Tyrion's character growth.

Completely agree that they would hate her character, however I don't think she will be as necessary as I reckon they will continue the St Tyrion whitewashing to such an extent that he will just be happy go lucky Tyrion, who feels a bit bad about Shae (if he kills her at all). They have removed him raping Tysha, so I imagine they will remove threatening the servant in Pentos and the rape of the slave. I imagine it will turn into an odd couple comedy caper with him and Jorah.

[Arkash]

Rehearsal shots for what's undoubtedly the Purple Wedding have dribbled out (it's the Sept of Baelor set). You can even see some floral decorations around where the altar is.

The coolest thing is a blurry shot of Season 4 Jaime all Kingsguarded up again. His short hair--even shorter than it was in Season 1--is going to take some getting used to. (A moment of silence for Jaime's shaggy Season 3 haircut and beard.)

I dont think that is Jaime... either it is another KG, either it is simply light rehearsals, with doubles playing the characters (since I dont think this is Jack Gleeson either).

[Newstar]

Completely agree that they would hate her character, however I don't think she will be as necessary as I reckon they will continue the St Tyrion whitewashing to such an extent that he will just be happy go lucky Tyrion, who feels a bit bad about Shae (if he kills her at all). They have removed him raping Tysha, so I imagine they will remove threatening the servant in Pentos and the rape of the slave.

I wouldn't call Season 3 Tyrion happy go lucky, although he was a ways off from where his character was in the equivalent section of ASOS, so I don't imagine his parts of ADWD when (if?) filmed will have that tone. Nor do I think that the conclusion of the Tyrion/Shae arc will be too far off what it is in the books: different in details, maybe, but it will likely hit the same notes.

Just as a general comment, it's strange. The adaptation seems to change so much, (there are entire arcs past Season 1 that have basically been created from whole cloth), move so much around, alter a lot of key interactions and relationship dynamics, create new relationships or interactions, cut out so many characters, and include so much non-book stuff, but when you look at the major plot points, it's still pretty much all there. The musculature (nuances of character dynamics, backstories, composite characters, fates of minor characters, timing for character introductions into the story, etc.) might be different from the books, but the bones are the same. Despite the differences between the Tyrion/Shae relationship in the show and the Tyrion/Shae relationship in the book, the many weird detours Tyrion and Shae's relationship has taken in the show, and the way Shae's personality and motivations seem to be in a constant state of flux, I suspect that when we get to the end of Season 4, it will have ended more or less the same way it did in the books.

I imagine it will turn into an odd couple comedy caper with him and Jorah.

Wait, you mean it isn't? :D

[1234567]

Just as a general comment, it's strange. The adaptation seems to change so much, (there are entire arcs past Season 1 that have basically been created from whole cloth), move so much around, alter a lot of key interactions and relationship dynamics, create new relationships or interactions, cut out so many characters, and include so much non-book stuff, but when you look at the major plot points, it's still pretty much all there. The musculature (nuances of character dynamics, backstories, composite characters, fates of minor characters, timing for character introductions into the story, etc.) might be different from the books, but the bones are the same.

The plot points are mostly there and the bones of the story are certainly present, but that doesn't make it a good adaptation or even the same story to be honest. It is almost like a "chinese whisper of thrones". The original plot and chracterisation is getting further and further from the books with each passing season.

In terms of hitting plot points, it could easily be said that they could have adapted the LOTR to make the Hobbits tall handsome guys and made Gandalf female and it would have still hit the major plot points, but would it be the same story: no. The bare bones of ASOIAF are there, but what makes it an interesting story has all but been removed in the case of many characters. Also there are so many good adaptations which have been successful and stayed true to the book. The first season was pretty damn close to the book and it was wonderful. The problems started in season 2 and have got worse from there. ironically they are managing to hit some storylines well: Jaime and Brienne for example and Dany this season. These storylines were also fairly close to the book.

However there was a ridiculous amount of filler that was not needed and made up because D&D seem to favour some actors over others.

Wait, you mean it isn't? :D

Sadly I'm finding it hard these days to have a sense of humour about the TV series.

[Newstar]

In terms of hitting plot points, it could easily be said that they could have adapted the LOTR to make the Hobbits tall handsome guys and made Gandalf female and it would have still hit the major plot points, but would it be the same story: no.

That's a bit extreme, since there are no genderswapped characters in the adaptation that I can think of (although if they did that, it would be awesome).

The bare bones of ASOIAF are there, but what makes it an interesting story has all but been removed in the case of many characters.

I guess it depends on what you think makes it interesting.

Also there are so many good adaptations which have been successful and stayed true to the book.

True, but their source material wasn't an epic fantasy deliberately written to be unfilmable. There were a number of complaints from critics when the first four episodes of Season 3 came out that the narrative seemed really fragmented, and there was a lot of praise of later episodes that slowed things down and focused on four or five plots per episode, as opposed to 9 or 10, but the fragmented episodes are necessary to move the adaptation along, so adjustments have to be made.

The first season was pretty damn close to the book and it was wonderful.

That's hardly a coincidence, given that the first book had the smallest cast, the tightest plot, the most confined storylines, etc. etc. It's when the narrative starts sprawling and the story starts getting much bigger and opening up on more and more fronts that the adaptation gets increasingly unwieldy.

The problems started in season 2 and have got worse from there. ironically they are managing to hit some storylines well: Jaime and Brienne for example and Dany this season. These storylines were also fairly close to the book.

Generally, it's true that adaptations are better when they hew more closely to the source material. One of the reasons Bryan Cogman's episodes come in for so much praise is that he's the most inclined of any of the writers to drop huge chunks of book plot/dialogue into his episodes more or less unmolested. But I'm willing to accept that in many cases that's just not feasible, workable or desirable when coming up with a 10-episode season with a gajillion moving parts and a cast of about 70 people with major, minor, or recurring speaking parts at any given time. GRRM also has a trick of dropping major characters for a few books and bringing them back into rotation in a big way, which is fine for his books, but doesn't work at all for TV, where the parts have to be played by actors who may or may not be able to drop in and out of production so easily. So either you get used to recasting people, or you come up with things for them to do in the in-between seasons.

However there was a ridiculous amount of filler that was not needed and made up because D&D seem to favour some actors over others.

Like who?

[Mr Fixit]

That's hardly a coincidence, given that the first book had the smallest cast, the tightest plot, the most confined storylines, etc. etc. It's when the narrative starts sprawling and the story starts getting much bigger and opening up on more and more fronts that the adaptation gets increasingly unwieldy.

This is one of the things that really needs to be said again and again it seems, because so many people fail to understand that basic difference in scope between AGoT and later books. A Game of Thrones has basically 3-4 storylines and that's pretty much it. There's the onset of Stark-Lannister war with almost all principal characters concentrated in King's Landing; there's Dany and there's Jon. Voila! The fourth storyline would perhaps be Tyrion/Cat as they are geographically removed from the rest, though they are a part of the larger political mayhem. Of course it's easier to faithfully adapt the first book!

On the other hand, ACoK and ASoS have at least double that many plotlines and characters vying for the same amount of screentime. It's only natural that you won't be able to get all the nuances from the books unless you think that 13-15 episode seasons are doable. The sooner people realise that, the more they'll enjoy the show.

[PatrickStormborn]

This is one of the things that really needs to be said again and again it seems, because so many people fail to understand that basic difference in scope between AGoT and later books. A Game of Thrones has basically 3-4 storylines and that's pretty much it. There's the onset of Stark-Lannister war with almost all principal characters concentrated in King's Landing; there's Dany and there's Jon. Voila! The fourth storyline would perhaps be Tyrion/Cat as they are geographically removed from the rest, though they are a part of the larger political mayhem. Of course it's easier to faithfully adapt the first book!

On the other hand, ACoK and ASoS have at least double that many plotlines and characters vying for the same amount of screentime. It's only natural that you won't be able to get all the nuances from the books unless you think that 13-15 episode seasons are doable. The sooner people realise that, the more they'll enjoy the show.

This is not a valid excuse, considering that in seasons 2 and 3 they added more storylines rather than reducing them (Robb in season 2, expanding Dany's storyline in season 2, giving Theon a storyline in season 3, etc.)

But most importantly: most of the complaints about seasons 2 and 3 are about the unnecessary changes made to the source material: Robb/Talisa, the Qarth story, replacing the Halfhand with Ygritte, etc. These unnecessary changes have nothing whatsoever to do with the "difference in scope between AGoT and later books", so the excuse is simply not relevant.

If anything, it's D&D who have failed to understand this difference in scope. They have talked about how they had to add additional scenes in season one, which they enjoyed doing. But then they continue to add these additional scenes in later seasons, despite the "difference in scope" meaning that there is far less time for these scenes.

[1234567]

That's a bit extreme, since there are no genderswapped characters in the adaptation that I can think of (although if they did that, it would be awesome).

It was an example and in my opinion, not that an extreme one.

If however, you want a closer example, Smeagol is turned into a completely sympathetic character, who never killed Deagol and then valiently sacrifices himself by jumping with the ring into mount doom. Although we do not know Tyrion's fate yet and he is not yet as odious as Smeagol, his darker elements have been completely removed. On the TWOP completey unspoiled thread, I've seen him described as the basic epitome of a hero in several different posts.

Or they could have made Galadriel into a one line mother figure who lacks political knowledge or any sense of conflict over the ring. In terms of Cat, they removed her to the position of a background figure who had less lines in Season 3 than Bronn.

Or they could have decided that Faramir was a bit dull and changed him into a crusading hero who had abandoned his family to become a lone ranger and fight for equality through middle earth. Which is basically what the change from Jeyne to Talisa amounted to.

All the above changes would still mean that the LOTR still hits the correct plot points, but would severely change the story. There are comments I've seen from those who watched the first 2/3 seasons and then read the books and are really shocked by the differences.

That's hardly a coincidence, given that the first book had the smallest cast, the tightest plot, the most confined storylines, etc. etc. It's when the narrative starts sprawling and the story starts getting much bigger and opening up on more and more fronts that the adaptation gets increasingly unwieldy.

But if that was the case, why add so many extra storylines? Why change characters storylines to complicate them further, or add in extended brothel scenes and torture scenes.

GRRM also has a trick of dropping major characters for a few books and bringing them back into rotation in a big way, which is fine for his books, but doesn't work at all for TV, where the parts have to be played by actors who may or may not be able to drop in and out of production so easily. So either you get used to recasting people, or you come up with things for them to do in the in-between seasons.

Yet they have had no issues doing exactly that with Barristen Selmy's character and Lysa. There are not that many characters that drop out, that it can't be worked around. Also HBO can find another role for a season for actors if need be.

Like who?

Tyrion, Theon, Bronn and any lady willing to take her clothes off.

This is not a valid excuse, considering that in seasons 2 and 3 they added more storylines rather than reducing them (Robb in season 2, expanding Dany's storyline in season 2, giving Theon a storyline in season 3, etc.)

But most importantly: most of the complaints about seasons 2 and 3 are about the unnecessary changes made to the source material: Robb/Talisa, the Qarth story, replacing the Halfhand with Ygritte, etc. These unnecessary changes have nothing whatsoever to do with the "difference in scope between AGoT and later books", so the excuse is simply not relevant.

If anything, it's D&D who have failed to understand this difference in scope. They have talked about how they had to add additional scenes in season one, which they enjoyed doing. But then they continue to add these additional scenes in later seasons, despite the "difference in scope" meaning that there is far less time for these scenes.

Well said. The additional scenes in Seasons 2 and 3 often did not move the story and seemed to be there either to give certain characters more screen time and add in their female nudity quota.

Ironically most of the added scenes in Season 1 were quite good.