Jump to content

Hizdahr zo Loraq cast


Professional Dragonslayer

Recommended Posts

I never said they were 100% true to the books, but let's compare it to other book-film adaptions:

True Blood - started out similar, but by the end became a completely different thing.

Dexter - only the first season had anything

Harry Potter - first 3 films were relatively true to the books, but it completely derailed after that.

Dune (movie) - umm, yeah, don't go there. Just don't.

Narnia - I haven't actually read the books (yet), but from what I gather it was relatively loyal

The Lord of the Rings - very loyal, with minimal deviations

The Hobbit - still mostly loyal, but quite a few deviations to make it work better on screen

Hunger Games - again, I haven't read the books (yet), but from what I understand the movie was mostly loyal.

Purists often go on about how different GoT is from the books, but if you look at other adaptions it has been incredible loyal thus far. You want to see what a terrible adaption that completely deviates from the books actually looks like: watch Dune or Harry Potter or Dexter or True Blood. Overall I would put Game of Thrones up with the Hobbit in terms of how close to the books it is. Have there been differences? Yes. Have those differences stayed true to the spirit of the series as a whole, and been effective in making it work on screen? Yes, for the most part, although there have been times where it hasn't worked (Jon S2).

There's no reason to assume that they will suddenly make their own story like Dexter. I still remember this time last year when people were sure that they would either have Ros or Talisa replace Jeyne Poole and marry Ramsay, and whenever someone suggested that D&D would stick to the books they would be shot down as being naive :P.

Excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said they were 100% true to the books, but let's compare it to other book-film adaptions:

True Blood - started out similar, but by the end became a completely different thing.

Dexter - only the first season had anything

Harry Potter - first 3 films were relatively true to the books, but it completely derailed after that.

Dune (movie) - umm, yeah, don't go there. Just don't.

Narnia - I haven't actually read the books (yet), but from what I gather it was relatively loyal

The Lord of the Rings - very loyal, with minimal deviations

The Hobbit - still mostly loyal, but quite a few deviations to make it work better on screen

Hunger Games - again, I haven't read the books (yet), but from what I understand the movie was mostly loyal.

Purists often go on about how different GoT is from the books, but if you look at other adaptions it has been incredible loyal thus far. You want to see what a terrible adaption that completely deviates from the books actually looks like: watch Dune or Harry Potter or Dexter or True Blood. Overall I would put Game of Thrones up with the Hobbit in terms of how close to the books it is. Have there been differences? Yes. Have those differences stayed true to the spirit of the series as a whole, and been effective in making it work on screen? Yes, for the most part, although there have been times where it hasn't worked (Jon S2).

There's no reason to assume that they will suddenly make their own story like Dexter. I still remember this time last year when people were sure that they would either have Ros or Talisa replace Jeyne Poole and marry Ramsay, and whenever someone suggested that D&D would stick to the books they would be shot down as being naive :P.

I agree, it's one of the most faithful book adaptations ever made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to see what a terrible adaption that completely deviates from the books actually looks like: watch Dune or Harry Potter or Dexter or True Blood.

I feel I should clarify something here: when I said 'terrible adaption', I didn't meant that the show/movie itself was terrible, just that if you judge them by how close they are to the books they are terrible. I very much enjoyed Dexter :P

One other thing I forgot to mention: although generally speaking the closer you are to the books the better the adaption is, if you follow the books word for word the adaption will either be terrible or impossible to make. Deviations, even if only small one, will always need to be made for the adaption to work. GoT having some deviations from the books was a necessity of the adaption process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I never said they were 100% true to the books, but let's compare it to other book-film adaptions: True Blood - started out similar, but by the end became a completely different thing. Dexter - only the first season had anything to do with the books Harry Potter - first 3 films were relatively true to the books, but it completely derailed after that. Dune (movie) - umm, yeah, don't go there. Just don't. Narnia - I haven't actually read the books (yet), but from what I gather it was relatively loyal The Lord of the Rings - very loyal, with minimal deviations The Hobbit - still mostly loyal, but quite a few deviations to make it work better on screen Hunger Games - again, I haven't read the books (yet), but from what I understand the movie was mostly loyal. Purists often go on about how different GoT is from the books, but if you look at other adaptions it has been incredible loyal thus far. You want to see what a terrible adaption that completely deviates from the books actually looks like: watch Dune or Harry Potter or Dexter or True Blood. Overall I would put Game of Thrones up with the Hobbit in terms of how close to the books it is. Have there been differences? Yes. Have those differences stayed true to the spirit of the series as a whole, and been effective in making it work on screen? Yes, for the most part, although there have been times where it hasn't worked (Jon S2). There's no reason to assume that they will suddenly make their own story like Dexter. I still remember this time last year when people were sure that they would either have Ros or Talisa replace Jeyne Poole and marry Ramsay, and whenever someone suggested that D&D would stick to the books they would be shot down as being naive :P.

Others are more terrible, so Dan and David are doing a good job. Right. I'm considering mostly the fact that every season deviates more and more, and no, I don't believe they have managed to capture the feel of the books in the show, at least not in the last season. It's cheap pandering and the result of the fact success always makes people overconfident, that's what it is. My problem is not the amount of changes due to budget and time restrictions, my problem is when they make changes that just show how inept they are (their failure to make Littlefinger anything more than a moustache-twirling villain), changes that are simply made because they want them to and have NOTHING to do with time or budget constraints (why have Stannis say something he never said when it would be just as easy, cheap and take just as little time to make him say what he said in the books?) or include scenes that serve no purpose when they are already short on time (here are the whores behind curtains 1, 2 and 3!), why make changes to dialogue (the Lannisters send their regards) simply to the benefit of certain characters D and D love to wank over? Worse than a lack of talent, raising the finger to the source material when you have the opportunity to stay true to it simply because you want to shows a lack of respect for it, it expresses the idea that you think your idea is better, or more important, than the writer's, and that's something I can't handle. The things that are good about the show and hide its flaws to the greater public are 1) the cast 2) the budget and 3) the source material, but certainly NOT the writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Others are more terrible, so Dan and David are doing a good job. Right. I'm considering mostly the fact that every season deviates more and more, and no, I don't believe they have managed to capture the feel of the books in the show, at least not in the last season. It's cheap pandering and the result of the fact success always makes people overconfident, that's what it is. My problem is not the amount of changes due to budget and time restrictions, my problem is when they make changes that just show how inept they are (their failure to make Littlefinger anything more than a moustache-twirling villain), changes that are simply made because they want them to and have NOTHING to do with time or budget constraints (why have Stannis say something he never said when it would be just as easy, cheap and take just as little time to make him say what he said in the books?) or include scenes that serve no purpose when they are already short on time (here are the whores behind curtains 1, 2 and 3!), why make changes to dialogue (the Lannisters send their regards) simply to the benefit of certain characters D and D love to wank over? Worse than a lack of talent, raising the finger to the source material when you have the opportunity to stay true to it simply because you want to shows a lack of respect for it, it expresses the idea that you think your idea is better, or more important, than the writer's, and that's something I can't handle. The things that are good about the show and hide its flaws to the greater public are 1) the cast 2) the budget and 3) the source material, but certainly NOT the writing.

Overall I agree with you, but the Lannister line is a really bad example. Why would they leave the "Jaime Lannister sends his regards" line? There were excellent reasons to change it, and no reasons I can think of to keep it. It has nothing to do with 'wanking' over any characters, it has everything to do with confusing the audience. I didn't get why Robb's killer said that the first time I read it, even in the books you need to keep everything in mind to connect the dots, and in the show it would be even harder - many viewers didn't even remember who Roose Bolton was. More importantly, in the show we don't have the POV narration, we are not in the characters' minds - so if they had kept that line, the viewers would think that Jaime had something to do with the planning of the RW, while in the books we know he didn't, so that line only serves to show that Roose Bolton was Robb's murderer (which you don't need in the show either, you see who he is, provided you remembered him).

It's like people complaining about not having Tyrion threaten to rape Tommen and listing it as a supposed example of "whitewashing", which is completely ridiculous. If he had said that in the show, people would think he's a complete monster, because we don't have his POV in the show and wouldn't necessarily realize that he has no intention to do that and is just using Cersei's opinion of him as a monster to make a bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timeline is a little confusing. :( I have no objections in including Hizdahr on season four if he's only going to appear for two episodes or something, just to introduce him so other viewers who haven't read the books won't be surprised when we finally get to Dany's ADWD storyline. But honestly, I think it's too early. Does anyone know if Arianne Martell is going to be cast for season 4?

The Dorne is pretty obviously going to be introduced in season 5. Season 4 will have lots of material as it is - the only Dornish we're probably going to see are Oberyn, Ellaria and whoever else is in King's Landing. I bet they're going to stretch out Oberyn's role as much as they can, considering his popularity, and probably have more scenes with him and Ellaria (since they cast a relatively high profile TV actress), probably interacting with Cersei, and showing things we didn't see since we were stuck with only Tyrion's and Jaime's POVs in King's Landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

No, the evidence in the books suggests that the name of Loraq is an important one in Meereen. Hizdhar distinguished himself by buying up shares in the fighting pits after their closure, subsequently becoming an extremely rich man when they reopen. The Green Grace describes Loraq as an ancient and noble line (much like the Starks, Daynes, Arryns etc. of Westeros) whereas she claims Kandaq (i.e Skahaz) comes from lesser lineage, more akin to Frey, Baelish and other minor houses of Westeros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...