State of Play Regarding the HBO Adaption

[Werthead]

It turns out that someone has been going around saying that HBO have dropped the option on A Song of Ice and Fire. I just wanted to set the record straight here:

HBO optioned A Song of Ice and Fire in January 2007. The length of the option is not entirely clear, but will not lapse before autumn 2008. The project was brought to their attention by two highly-regarded writers, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who had attempted to fit the story into a single movie (basically featuring Jon and Dany's storylines and nothing else) and failed. HBO agreed to film one novel's worth of material per season, meaning that the series would last for six or seven 13-episode seasons (depending on how they approach the ADWD/AFFC split), assuming the ratings are good.

A pilot script was completed in August. GRRM approved it (quite highly, actually) and it was sent off to HBO. HBO are now in the process of considering it, assessing budgets, looking at filming locations (Eastern Europe or maybe even New Zealand are possibilities) and generally weighing up the project. This process was expected to take until well into the New Year. However, the Writer's Strike which has killed every US TV show stone dead in their tracks has now frozen all work on the adaption as well. HBO could still greenlight the project, but no writing work can be done until the strike is over, which some pessimists have suggested won't be until June 2008.

Apparently HBO are also considering a drama based on King Arthur which would likely mean that ASoIaF would not be made, or not made until after the Arthur series wraps. However, no work has been done on the Arthur series whilst ASoIaF is much further down the road of development.

 

[Boaz]

Wert, much thanks for the heads up. I know HBO is solid on contemporary dramatic series and that they've also delved into historical fiction with Rome and the Tudors, but what have they done with fantasy? Would Arthur be considered fantasy or historical fiction? I could see this going either way or both... Considering the historic and factual feel of ASOIAF, would HBO even consider doing Arthur and ASOIAF concurrently? I think that'd be saturating the market.

On another note, I hope that HBO gets a director with a passion for ASOIAF and not just a proven action themed director. Peter Jackson had a real passion for The Lord of the Rings and that is a major reason the films were made and made to the high visual standards that they were. The fact that PJ's adherence to the original storyline was not as precise as I'd have liked makes me worry for ASOIAF. Even if they selected a Hollywood director with a passion for ASOIAF, will that passion translate to something that Wert, Kiwi, TK, AU, Wiggum, Weasel Soup, Tysha, Trey, Shack, and the rest of us will embrace?

Or do I just need to chill and take it for what it is? A fantasy TV series.

 

[viZion]

Or do I just need to chill and take it for what it is? A fantasy TV series.

Probably just accept it for what it is. If Martin approved of the script then it's probably pretty close to what happens in the book. It obviously won't follow the chapter POVs to the letter but I have faith it'll be a good adaptation. The only thing I worry about is that they would probably choose Arthur over A Song of Ice and Fire since the Arthurian legends are far more well-known. Then again, there are already plenty of Arthur movies and mini-series.

May I ask what you thought was wrong with the Lord of the Rings movies? I thought they were pretty spot on with regards to the books. Obviously, you can't include *everything* (and, thankfully, Tom Bombadil was cut out) otherwise they'd have to make two movies per book. That's asking a bit much.

 

[Boaz]

LOTR...

First, let me say that visually speaking the movies were beyond my expectations. From the digital effects to the mock sets to the costumes to the thousands of troops to the gorgeous land of New Zealand, the movies were stunning. All this combined to create the most realistic feel that I've ever seen in a fantasy world. The level of details in the costumes and sets asounded me. Incredible!

Second, the acting set LOTR apart from all other fantasy/adventure movies that I've ever seen. Where to begin? I did not want Ian McKellan as Gandalf, but his performance was spot on. Ian Holm did not act as Bilbo Baggins, no Ian Holm was Bilbo Baggins. Even though Christopher Lee played the same role in Star Wars, he was great as Saruman. Brad Dourif, as usual, was awesome. Viggo Mortensen was about six inches too short in my estimation, but he conveyed Strider's combination of compassion, wilderness smarts, ferocity, and wisdom very well. Andy Serkis and the effects people stole every scene that Gollum was in. Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Sean Astin, and Elijah Wood all were very, very good. Bernard Hill was outstanding. I don't care for Liv Tyer, but she changed my mind with her elven accent. I could go on and on...

The third tremendous aspect of the movies was accomplished with the decision to film all three simultaneously. Actors age... People desire bigger contracts... Props get lost... Locations change... Technology in filming advances... The Indiana Jones movies solved this by changing locations and using multiple stories over a number of years. The first three Star Wars movies and the Back to the Future movies tried to get around this, but the aging of the actors really shows. But The Lord of the Rings has a true feel of continuity that has never been achieved on the big screen before.

Now before I start in on my complaints, I'd like to make a comment on the difference between genuine and accurate. Genuine means real or authentic. Genuine is the original work. Accurate means correct. Accurate is being consitent to a certain ideal or specification. Genuine means something is the original real deal, while accurate means something sure looks, smells, and tastes like the original.

Some parts of LOTR really felt genuine. Bilbo. Hobbiton. Gollum and Smeagol's conversations. Minas Tirith. The Argonath. Narsil. Moria. The charge of the Rohirrim. Sam's battle with Shelob. The Last Alliance. Deagol's murder. Sam's glimpse of the oliphaunt. Gandalf and the Balrog on the bridge. These are some of the most memorable places, people and events in the film. They felt genuine to me. They seemed to be word for word from Tolkien's text.

Other parts were not genuine, but they fit in seemlessly. For instance, Frodo never sent Sam back home. Yet this fit well into the story because of Gollum's whisperings and the weight of the Ring. Other differences that worked were Sauron's possession of Theoden, Frodo's offering the Ring to Aragorn upon Amon Hen, the introduction of Rosie early on, and Grima's whisperings to Eowyn. These were either made up or took place away from Tolkien's narrative, but they had "the ring of truth" to quote Gandalf. They were not genuine, but they were darn sure authentic.

Mostly my beef with LOTR is where the story departs from the original and falls upon it's face. Arwen dying fromt the darkness. Aragorn's reluctance to take up the mantle of Elendil. Elrond's disdain for the descendents of the Edain. Faramir's character was 180 degrees from Tolkien's Faramir. Treebeard and the Ents deciding not to go to war. Gandalf and Aragorn's insistence that Theoden meet Saruman in open battle. Aragorn's falling off a cliff. Gimli's lounging on the throne of Gondor. Frodo falling face first into the Dead Marshes. The arcane electric storm when Pippin gazed into the palantir. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli just manhandling the guards in Edoras and no one stopped them. Aragorn killed the Mouth of Sauron. Denethor went looney about a week too early. Arwen's conjuring of the river. Denethor's quarter mile sprint while doing his best Human Torch imitation. Elrond's trip to Rohan. Frodo revealing himself to a Nazgul in Osgiliath. Arwen and Elrond's foreknowledge of Eldarion. Faramir's sandy hair. Legolas' mad X-Games skills. Gimli being the butt of every joke. Elves at the Hornburg.

<Sigh.>

These parts of the story were nonsensical and annoying. They were not genuine. They were not even authentic. They were patently false.

Most of the ridiculous changes occured in The Two Towers.

If I was grading these movies, I'd give Fellowship a 99%, Towers a 33%, and Return a 75%. Sorry to say, but at my school a 69% was a failing grade. And that's too bad, because The Fellowship of the Ring was absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Most people don't have the criticisms of the films that I do. That's because they were the target audience, not me. The films were made for the uninitiated, the open minded, and the casually acquainted with Tolkien. The films were not made for fanatics. If I'd never read LOTR or only read it once, then I'd confidently say that this film trilogy was the greatest fantasy/adventure films I'd ever seen, hands down. I'd also say that LOTR would be one of the five best movies I've ever seen.

If the movies have brought more readers to enjoy Tolkien's works, that's wonderful. But I have too much time, effort, and emotion tied up in Tolkien over the last thirty some years to just throw it all away for these movies.

If they'd called the films The Great Fantasy Adventure and if they'd changed the names, then I might have been fine with it.

Soooooooooo.....

This post should reveal my concerns over ASOIAF. What if Jaime has brown hair? What if Ned takes Bran to KL and that's where the Hound tosses him from a window? What if Tyrion is mentally unbalanced? What if Jon sleeps with Ygritte and her four sisters? What if Renly is captured and executed along with Eddard? What if Arya sneaks out of KL aboard a ship to Braavos? What if Littlefinger, not Jaime, turns out to be Joffrey's father?

I'm serious. Would these changes bother you? They'd bother me. But they would not bother anyone who'd never read ASOIAF... no, they'd say, "Great story. Man, I loved the part where Ghost killed Mance Rayder! Oh, and when Sansa married Loras and Brienne married Jaime at the double wedding... I cried my eyes out! But my favorite part was when Rickon picked up Robb's sword and killed Lord Walder!"

<Sigh.>

 

[Shacklock]

LOTR...

Soooooooooo.....

This post should reveal my concerns over ASOIAF. What if Jaime has brown hair? What if Ned takes Bran to KL and that's where the Hound tosses him from a window? What if Tyrion is mentally unbalanced? What if Jon sleeps with Ygritte and her four sisters? What if Renly is captured and executed along with Eddard? What if Arya sneaks out of KL aboard a ship to Braavos? What if Littlefinger, not Jaime, turns out to be Joffrey's father?

I'm serious. Would these changes bother you? They'd bother me. But they would not bother anyone who'd never read ASOIAF... no, they'd say, "Great story. Man, I loved the part where Ghost killed Mance Rayder! Oh, and when Sansa married Loras and Brienne married Jaime at the double wedding... I cried my eyes out! But my favorite part was when Rickon picked up Robb's sword and killed Lord Walder!"

<Sigh.>

I agree with you on the LOTR part, some of the inconsistences really annoyed me. But lol, I don't think somehow that GRMM is gonna let them screw the story like that for no reason. Expect small differences, not massive.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

I'm serious. Would these changes bother you? They'd bother me. But they would not bother anyone who'd never read ASOIAF... no, they'd say, "Great story. Man, I loved the part where Ghost killed Mance Rayder! Oh, and when Sansa married Loras and Brienne married Jaime at the double wedding... I cried my eyes out! But my favorite part was when Rickon picked up Robb's sword and killed Lord Walder!"

<Sigh.>

Id hate those people....hate.

Agree with everything on LOTR. Im not even as much of a fanboi as you Boaz, but even I was was all...."What the...? Wheres Glorfindel? And why is Arwen calling down the river?" My wife told me I'd never again know the touch of a woman if I didnt stop kvetching about it. Im not sure I was willing to risk that.

 

[Tysha]

Great post Boaz.
I know I'll be very judgmental and of course there will be a lot of annoying mistakes and inaccuracy. (Gods save us from: "Great story. Man, I loved the part where ... Rickon picked up Robb's sword and killed Lord Walder!" I hope it will not come to that.)
I think of those HBO series more like a religious man, a missioner - TV will help with the exposure of The Books! As it happened with LOTR - more people will run to a book store to purchase The Holy Book(s) and spread them as wide as they can!
I think that most actors will annoy me, and whatever will be cut will ruin the story line and the deepness of the characters... but still I want to see this, as I want to see everything ASOIAF-related

 

[Werthead]

It's also worth mentioning that George will have a producer's credit, will oversee the quality of the scripts (I think he has to sign off on them) and will actually write one episode per season as well. George is well-versed to do this, as he wrote a dozen episodes of Beauty and the Beast in the late 1980s and was a script-editor and producer on that show. He also wrote several episodes of The New Twilight Zone and created, wrote and produced a pilot that didn't go to series, called Doorways, in 1992.

 

[Boaz]

It took me too long to find the below quotes and Wert posted ahead of me.

I agree with Wert, mayhaps the biggest difference the productions of LOTR and ASOIAF is the very fact the GRRM is alive and signed on to write and consult wheras JRRT passed away before his works were put onto film. No one's vision will ever be the same as the author's. I hate to say it, but my visions of LOTR may have horrified Professor Tolkien.

Mister Martin himself is the biggest asset the HBO's ASOIAF series has going for it.

Did you see Michael Mann's 1992 version of The Last of the Mohicans? Daniel Day-Lewis, Russell Means, Madeleine Stowe, Eric Schweig, and Wes Studi starred. The acting was solid. The cinematography was excellent. The music was stirring. Overall, the movie was very well done. But I don't know why they bothered to call it The Last of the Mohicans because the story had significant departures from James Fennimore Cooper's original. Michael Mann went on record saying that Cooper got the story wrong. Mann said he was fixing the story.

MM: The guy who got it most wrong is James Fenimore Cooper. Writing years after these events in a very romantic age, having sentimental notions about noble savages, Cooper managed to completely denigrate the northeastern Indians.

The following is an exerpt from Graham Fuller's interview of Mann about Mohicans. (The emphasis is mine.)

GF: Was there a point when you were writing the screenplay where you abandoned Cooper's novel?

MM: Yes, very early on, though not at a specific point but in specific areas. For example, I based [Major] Heyward on Cooper himself, not on Cooper's character. Cooper believed in static hierarchies, a kind of political harmony of the spheres: If people and classes stay in place, there's a harmony; if they don't, there are problems. In Cooper, Hawkeye is constantly apologizing or reassuring total strangers that he's not of mixed blood!: 'Hi, I'm Hawkeye, how are you? I'm not of mixed blood.' So the whole notion of races crossing, of miscegenation, of people moving into different classes, was anathema to Cooper. I decided to take all these characteristics and stick them into Heyward. If you read the novel very carefully, the daughter, Cora, who falls in love with Uncas and dies, is a mulatto. Her father, Colonel Munro, wanted Heyward to marry Cora but Hayward preferred Alice; Munro was initially insulted and went into a two-page diatribe about the fact that her mother was an aristocratic woman. I switched it around so that it's Cora and Hawkeye who fall in love.

So what if the director of ASOIAF says, "Martin denigrated dwarves and eunuchs? I will return their dignity... so Tyrion will marry Margaery thus uniting Lannisters and Tyrells under the rule of Vaerys I."

This is like Jack Kirby (the original artist of the Fantastic Four, Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, Silver Surfer, etc.) saying, "I'm going to redo the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Michaelangelo got it wrong. We now know that God is dead, so the Universal Essence will give life to humans, aliens, mutants, and heroes. Michaelangelo was stuck in that Italian Renaissance mindset that refused to accept the religious, sexual, gender, and political realities that we know." (I love Kirby's drawing. I have no notion of his religious, political, and philosophical views. I was merely using Kirby's and Michaelangelo's artistic styles and the ages in which they lived as contrasts.)

 

[TK-421]

I am watching The Tudors now on CBC and it's very good and naughty. I thought it was a Showtime series and not HBO (or is this essentially the same thing).

 

[Boaz]

They might not think they are the same.

"Maybe. To sheep, other sheep no doubt appear different," laughed Lindir. "Or to shepherds."

 

[The_Warrior]

LOTR...

First, let me say that visually speaking the movies were beyond my expectations. From the digital effects to the mock sets to the costumes to the thousands of troops to the gorgeous land of New Zealand, the movies were stunning. All this combined to create the most realistic feel that I've ever seen in a fantasy world. The level of details in the costumes and sets asounded me. Incredible!

Second, the acting set LOTR apart from all other fantasy/adventure movies that I've ever seen. Where to begin? I did not want Ian McKellan as Gandalf, but his performance was spot on. Ian Holm did not act as Bilbo Baggins, no Ian Holm was Bilbo Baggins. Even though Christopher Lee played the same role in Star Wars, he was great as Saruman. Brad Dourif, as usual, was awesome. Viggo Mortensen was about six inches too short in my estimation, but he conveyed Strider's combination of compassion, wilderness smarts, ferocity, and wisdom very well. Andy Serkis and the effects people stole every scene that Gollum was in. Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Sean Astin, and Elijah Wood all were very, very good. Bernard Hill was outstanding. I don't care for Liv Tyer, but she changed my mind with her elven accent. I could go on and on...

The third tremendous aspect of the movies was accomplished with the decision to film all three simultaneously. Actors age... People desire bigger contracts... Props get lost... Locations change... Technology in filming advances... The Indiana Jones movies solved this by changing locations and using multiple stories over a number of years. The first three Star Wars movies and the Back to the Future movies tried to get around this, but the aging of the actors really shows. But The Lord of the Rings has a true feel of continuity that has never been achieved on the big screen before.

Now before I start in on my complaints, I'd like to make a comment on the difference between genuine and accurate. Genuine means real or authentic. Genuine is the original work. Accurate means correct. Accurate is being consitent to a certain ideal or specification. Genuine means something is the original real deal, while accurate means something sure looks, smells, and tastes like the original.

Some parts of LOTR really felt genuine. Bilbo. Hobbiton. Gollum and Smeagol's conversations. Minas Tirith. The Argonath. Narsil. Moria. The charge of the Rohirrim. Sam's battle with Shelob. The Last Alliance. Deagol's murder. Sam's glimpse of the oliphaunt. Gandalf and the Balrog on the bridge. These are some of the most memorable places, people and events in the film. They felt genuine to me. They seemed to be word for word from Tolkien's text.

Other parts were not genuine, but they fit in seemlessly. For instance, Frodo never sent Sam back home. Yet this fit well into the story because of Gollum's whisperings and the weight of the Ring. Other differences that worked were Sauron's possession of Theoden, Frodo's offering the Ring to Aragorn upon Amon Hen, the introduction of Rosie early on, and Grima's whisperings to Eowyn. These were either made up or took place away from Tolkien's narrative, but they had "the ring of truth" to quote Gandalf. They were not genuine, but they were darn sure authentic.

Mostly my beef with LOTR is where the story departs from the original and falls upon it's face. Arwen dying fromt the darkness. Aragorn's reluctance to take up the mantle of Elendil. Elrond's disdain for the descendents of the Edain. Faramir's character was 180 degrees from Tolkien's Faramir. Treebeard and the Ents deciding not to go to war. Gandalf and Aragorn's insistence that Theoden meet Saruman in open battle. Aragorn's falling off a cliff. Gimli's lounging on the throne of Gondor. Frodo falling face first into the Dead Marshes. The arcane electric storm when Pippin gazed into the palantir. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli just manhandling the guards in Edoras and no one stopped them. Aragorn killed the Mouth of Sauron. Denethor went looney about a week too early. Arwen's conjuring of the river. Denethor's quarter mile sprint while doing his best Human Torch imitation. Elrond's trip to Rohan. Frodo revealing himself to a Nazgul in Osgiliath. Arwen and Elrond's foreknowledge of Eldarion. Faramir's sandy hair. Legolas' mad X-Games skills. Gimli being the butt of every joke. Elves at the Hornburg.

<Sigh.>

These parts of the story were nonsensical and annoying. They were not genuine. They were not even authentic. They were patently false.

Most of the ridiculous changes occured in The Two Towers.

If I was grading these movies, I'd give Fellowship a 99%, Towers a 33%, and Return a 75%. Sorry to say, but at my school a 69% was a failing grade. And that's too bad, because The Fellowship of the Ring was absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Most people don't have the criticisms of the films that I do. That's because they were the target audience, not me. The films were made for the uninitiated, the open minded, and the casually acquainted with Tolkien. The films were not made for fanatics. If I'd never read LOTR or only read it once, then I'd confidently say that this film trilogy was the greatest fantasy/adventure films I'd ever seen, hands down. I'd also say that LOTR would be one of the five best movies I've ever seen.

If the movies have brought more readers to enjoy Tolkien's works, that's wonderful. But I have too much time, effort, and emotion tied up in Tolkien over the last thirty some years to just throw it all away for these movies.

If they'd called the films The Great Fantasy Adventure and if they'd changed the names, then I might have been fine with it.

Soooooooooo.....

This post should reveal my concerns over ASOIAF. What if Jaime has brown hair? What if Ned takes Bran to KL and that's where the Hound tosses him from a window? What if Tyrion is mentally unbalanced? What if Jon sleeps with Ygritte and her four sisters? What if Renly is captured and executed along with Eddard? What if Arya sneaks out of KL aboard a ship to Braavos? What if Littlefinger, not Jaime, turns out to be Joffrey's father?

I'm serious. Would these changes bother you? They'd bother me. But they would not bother anyone who'd never read ASOIAF... no, they'd say, "Great story. Man, I loved the part where Ghost killed Mance Rayder! Oh, and when Sansa married Loras and Brienne married Jaime at the double wedding... I cried my eyes out! But my favorite part was when Rickon picked up Robb's sword and killed Lord Walder!"

<Sigh.>

YouTube - Aragorn vs Sauron=

 

[Knight of the Day]

Has anyone thought about putting together a little petition and bombarding HBO with emails on a specific day?????

If we could organise it here we could contact all other ASOIAF sites to join in. PEOPLE POWER STYLE.

LETS SEE WHO's INTERESTED

 

[cape_royds]

The cinema is just a much more constrained medium than print. It has to simplify, and that's a problem with any complex book.

Jackson's movie of Fellowship of the Ring was superb, but the other two I found disappointing because they veered unnecessarily from the story. Some shortcuts and simplification I expected and could live with. But after Fellowhip, Jackson tampered too much.

But the worst abuse of a book I've ever seen was Verhoeven's slaughter of Heinlein's Starship Troopers.