HBO officially commissions Season 1 of GAME OF THRONES

[Lady of Winterfell]

I'm so excited they decided to pick this up! Now its on to impatiently waiting until spring 2011.

 

[chairface]

Thanks Eulalia - Dune is a good example of a movie that didn't spoil a book for me, even though the quality wasn't there. And I appreciate your optimism about movies (and tv series, I assume) sometimes being better than the books. That would be quite a feat, but why not hope for it?

WS - your pringle pilferer snuck off before I had the chance to properly thank him, but he really was quite efficient and thorough, and I greatly appreciated his attention to detail and obvious appreciation for his craft. As it happens, I have been looking for someone to provide such a service on a semi-regular basis, so please PM me with his contact information if you think he might be interested.

 

[The Imp]

I think there's a trap they we have all fallen into at some point, that trap being "I want the screen version to duplicate the book, and anything less will be a disappointment". The decision we all have to make is, do we want to watch this movie, TV show, whatever, knowing that it can't possibly be as we imagined it. Characters will look different, wrong even. Parts of the books will be omitted due to the constraints of the medium. Westeros will be different. What is important is that those differences, the ones that can be controlled, are minimal. Peter Jackson caught a lot of flack, rightfully so IMO, for not being true enough to Tolkien's books. I think that if the writers of the HBO adaptation can at least not go down that path they'll be fine.

Given that GRRM will be involved in the process, even if only peripherally, I think it will be fine. I look forward to it with great anticipation, but I wouldn't criticize anyone who didn't because they wanted to preserve Westeros as they imagined it.

 

[pom]

I have to agree with the Imp, I think Jackson did a brilliant job on LOTR given the weight of expectation, and I for one am excited to see how they make it.

 

[Boaz]

Welcome, Chair.

Thanks again, Wert. You da Man!!!

Good discussion, guys.

Jackson had the unenviable (and not to mention, impossible) job of trying to bring JRR Tolkien's vision to life, but also Christopher Tolkien's, mine, yours, two hundred million viewers, and his own personal interpretations of Tolkien's story. Visually, Jackson succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. I felt like I understood all of the omissions of characters and sub-plots from Tolkien's narrative, i.e. the Gaffer, Bombadil, Glorfindel, Ioreth, and Ghan-buri-ghan. But some of the characters under his care were transformed beyond all recognition... Faramir, Denethor, Elrond, and Treebeard came across like characters from the Star Trek episode, "Mirror, Mirror", where the crew meets their evil counterparts.

Not to be a complete jerk... I found many characterizations by Jackson's crew to be stellar. Gollum, Gandalf, Bilbo, Saruman, Wormtongue, and Boromir were out-freaking-standing. I know many had problems with Sam's accent, but I thought Sean Astin was great. Aragorn, Arwen, Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden, Merry, and Isildur give me no complaints... and from me that means they were nearly perfect. Gimli, Legolas, Frodo, Pippin, Elrond, and Denthor were all well acted, I think my problem with them stems from the script... I dunno, I'm not a film maker... I just know what I like.

I agree with Imp, the additions to Tolkien's work were the most problematic for those well versed in Middle-earth. Elves at the Hornburg, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath, Eomer's exile, Aragorn's injuries, Arwen's sickness, Elrond's weekend trip to Rohan, the Dead going all the way to the Harlond, and Denethor's hundred yard, flaming dash beffudled me.

I think that variation from my personal vision of Martin's characters is a given. HBO's version cannot fully match my imagination... unless they somehow asked me to take over all aspects of their production.

Certain liberties will be taken with Martin's story because of time, expedience, budget, and overall flow of the story. Yet the characters need to feel true to me. I don't want to see Viserys as a raving lunatic, I'd like him to be vindictive, bitter, foolish, and somewhat paranoid. But if Viserys, Drogo, the Old Bear, Pycelle and Margaery are not correct, it won't disrupt the main story. There are some characters that must be fleshed out perfectly. I think masterful development of Eddard, Tyrion, Jaime, Jon, Dany, Jorah, Sam, Baelish, Arya, Sansa, Cersei, Stannis, and mayhaps Robb, Aemon, Theon, Varys, and Barristan as well, are absolutely critical for the success of the show. And that's a tall order.

But in my opnion the most crucial character is Catelyn.

I'll be disappointed if Catelyn is portrayed as methodical, cunning, and even tempered throughout. Too be sure, Catelyn thinks of herself as wise, level headed, and rock steady, but her decisions reek of haste, emotionalism, and predjudices. She is a critical character in the development of multiple plots and many other characters... Think about it, Eddard, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Jon, Tyrion, Lyssa, Edmure, Jaime, Brienne, Littlefinger, and Walder Frey all depend heavily upon the proper characterization of Catelyn. We must know exactly how Catelyn views her husband, her children, Jon, her siblings, Baelish, and the Lannisters in order to allow room for major thematic and narrative shifts throughout the series.

I know Catelyn hardly has any direct action with her daughters, yet her portrayal directly affects how both Sansa and Arya view themselves, each other, and the world.

Anyway, that's probably enough rambling from me.

I'm excited to see HBO's version... I think the main reason for this is that it allows me a larger platform to discuss and share ASOIAF (and the entire fantasy genre), with friends and family, as viable literature.

 

[purple_kathryn]

They've actually mentioned this on our local radio news here

it was also on the local bbc news

BBC News - Game of Thrones fantasy epic to be filmed in Belfast

 

[Brian G Turner]

This is such good news.

There are always problems moving from literature to TV - they are completely different mediums with different demands, and never transfer faithfully.

However, if the spirit of ASOFAI can be generally captured, it should make for very interesting viewing - though I'm sure we'll see big chunks of the book and events cut out in order to maintain pace and focus on what they do cover.

So far the casting has been generally very positive so far, which leaves plenty fo room for hope that it will try and be as faithful as possible to the original book.

 

[The Imp]

Welcome, Chair.

Thanks again, Wert. You da Man!!!

Good discussion, guys.

Jackson had the unenviable (and not to mention, impossible) job of trying to bring JRR Tolkien's vision to life, but also Christopher Tolkien's, mine, yours, two hundred million viewers, and his own personal interpretations of Tolkien's story. Visually, Jackson succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. I felt like I understood all of the omissions of characters and sub-plots from Tolkien's narrative, i.e. the Gaffer, Bombadil, Glorfindel, Ioreth, and Ghan-buri-ghan. But some of the characters under his care were transformed beyond all recognition... Faramir, Denethor, Elrond, and Treebeard came across like characters from the Star Trek episode, "Mirror, Mirror", where the crew meets their evil counterparts.

Not to be a complete jerk... I found many characterizations by Jackson's crew to be stellar. Gollum, Gandalf, Bilbo, Saruman, Wormtongue, and Boromir were out-freaking-standing. I know many had problems with Sam's accent, but I thought Sean Astin was great. Aragorn, Arwen, Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden, Merry, and Isildur give me no complaints... and from me that means they were nearly perfect. Gimli, Legolas, Frodo, Pippin, Elrond, and Denthor were all well acted, I think my problem with them stems from the script... I dunno, I'm not a film maker... I just know what I like.

I agree with Imp, the additions to Tolkien's work were the most problematic for those well versed in Middle-earth. Elves at the Hornburg, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath, Eomer's exile, Aragorn's injuries, Arwen's sickness, Elrond's weekend trip to Rohan, the Dead going all the way to the Harlond, and Denethor's hundred yard, flaming dash beffudled me.

I think that variation from my personal vision of Martin's characters is a given. HBO's version cannot fully match my imagination... unless they somehow asked me to take over all aspects of their production.

Certain liberties will be taken with Martin's story because of time, expedience, budget, and overall flow of the story. Yet the characters need to feel true to me. I don't want to see Viserys as a raving lunatic, I'd like him to be vindictive, bitter, foolish, and somewhat paranoid. But if Viserys, Drogo, the Old Bear, Pycelle and Margaery are not correct, it won't disrupt the main story. There are some characters that must be fleshed out perfectly. I think masterful development of Eddard, Tyrion, Jaime, Jon, Dany, Jorah, Sam, Baelish, Arya, Sansa, Cersei, Stannis, and mayhaps Robb, Aemon, Theon, Varys, and Barristan as well, are absolutely critical for the success of the show. And that's a tall order.

But in my opnion the most crucial character is Catelyn.

I'll be disappointed if Catelyn is portrayed as methodical, cunning, and even tempered throughout. Too be sure, Catelyn thinks of herself as wise, level headed, and rock steady, but her decisions reek of haste, emotionalism, and predjudices. She is a critical character in the development of multiple plots and many other characters... Think about it, Eddard, Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Jon, Tyrion, Lyssa, Edmure, Jaime, Brienne, Littlefinger, and Walder Frey all depend heavily upon the proper characterization of Catelyn. We must know exactly how Catelyn views her husband, her children, Jon, her siblings, Baelish, and the Lannisters in order to allow room for major thematic and narrative shifts throughout the series.

I know Catelyn hardly has any direct action with her daughters, yet her portrayal directly affects how both Sansa and Arya view themselves, each other, and the world.

Anyway, that's probably enough rambling from me.

I'm excited to see HBO's version... I think the main reason for this is that it allows me a larger platform to discuss and share ASOIAF (and the entire fantasy genre), with friends and family, as viable literature.

SPot on analysis regarding Cat . I'm not 100% sure that they can afford to screw up some minor characters, as long as they get the major ones right. For me that would just give the entire project a shoddy feel to it, but I also think that die-hard fans of the books will be far more critical than people entering Westeros for the first time

 

[Boaz]

Good to see Brian in here!!!

I do not desire to be negative regarding ASOIAF on HBO... indeed, I hope to have learned something from my experience with comparing The Lord Of The Rings on film to the love of my life, literarily speaking... I was too emotionally and experientially connected to Tolkien's work to be able to objectively evaluate Jackson's films. I like ASOIAF and I hope I am not so emotionally invested (in my forties, I don't seem to be as completely bonded to fantasy literature as I was when I was an adolescent) that I cannot judge HBO's work on it's own merits.

Also, I think I'm a well known Catelyn hater in this forum... I don't want anyone to think I wish her out of the story... In my estimation, she's the most necessary character (not the coolest, the noblest, nor the sexiest) to bringing the first three books to TV. I believe I'm also known here as a big, big fan of the Lannister brothers... yet, as much as it pains me to say, Catelyn is more vital to the whole story.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

 

[chairface]

That was an excellent analysis Boaz - I'm pretty sure I'm close to where you are/were with regard to both LotR and ASOIAF. With regard to the former (I won't go on at length) - at the time the movies came out, I thought it was odd that most of the criticism was directed at the omissions they made, rather than what was actually on the screen.

Now, with regard to Cat - brilliant. I've actually been working on a little project in my spare time (I'm a software developer) that visually maps out which characters are together at what point in time in ASOIAF (well, any book, but ASOIAF is my test case). In the process of doing that, it struck me just how many plotlines Cat touches - her line goes all over the place. So, anyway, just another way to look at the point you made

PS: I can't post links yet, but this is where I got the idea for my little project: xkcd.com/657/ , so think something like that, except automatically generated.

 

[Ursa major]

I think we'll all have to accept that adaptations are always going to be different, if only because different media (to take three examples almost at random):

• have different means (and conventions) for delivering information to the "consumer";
• have a different relationship with the consumer (in that TV and film are delivered to their viewers - and radio plays to their listeners - whereas a reader controls the speed of their experience, although an author will try to "direct" the experience);
• are aimed at different audiences.

With regard to the last of these, I'm sure that while HBO want as many readers of the books to watch the series, they want as many of the rest (the majority) of the potential audience to watch. If there is something that will annoy us readers but may hook the others, the producers are going to be tempted to do it. We (the readers) all hope they won't, but sometimes they will. (Not doing so may, in extremis, get the show cancelled.)


I have to admit that I fail to be upset when adaptations deviate from the original source. This is as true for LOTR (where I saw the films before I read the book) as it is for Dune (where I read the book first). I liked the film, I, Robot**, and also Asimov's robot stories. I like them for different reasons. They share a title and some characteristics, but they are different. Even if the film's producers had been punctilious in sticking to the stories, their film would still have been (and would have had to have been) different and I would have enjoyed it (or not) based on its own merits.



So enjoy (or not) HBO's show for what it is, for what is on the screen in front of you, not because of how "faithful" you wish it to be. And we always have the books....



** - The film got top marks from my mother, for goodness sake, who is, usually, not a particular fan of either sci-fi or action films. She even told me how much she liked it without any prompting from me; in fact, I'd assumed she'd switched channels when it came on the TV.

.

 

[Eulalia]

D'oh, Chairface. I plead jet lag and being in a rush, but I did intend to create a new paragraph, and use Dune and the Wizard of Earthsea as examples of how the video did not spoil the originals for me!

And Avatar was was supposed to be (not an adaptation of a book), but an example of how I recently did a lot of jedi mind tricks, so that the clunky dialogue did not spoil the spectacle, and the ideas. It really bothered me!

I suppose there are so many ways to view a movie (or TV series). You can allow yourself to get carried away, and you can have fun detecting all the inconsistencies...so many possibilities.

GRRM is an accomplished TV writer also. It will be interesting to see what happens. Good or bad. What they cut, why, which characters or scenes were altered, condensed, eliminated. How they convey info in the book that is communicated in thought. I would like to see effective visual tableau, even if it doesn't match the book. We may also get some clues about what is to come in the next books, because they important info will be highlighted, given the time contraints.

I think Boaz has a good point about Catelyn.

I hope the Others are not as cheesy as the Ents. They need to be frightening. At minimum, I hope for some fleshed out, enlightening characterization and some great settings. At best, well, something along the lines of Rome would be nice. (it is not historically accurate, though it has a lot of accurate detail.)

If it's bad, let the trashing begin. And may it not taint the reading experience too much.

 

[chairface]

No fear Eulalia, that's exactly how I took your post. I didn't think the Dune movie was great either, but it didn't spoil the book for me, so my experience is right in line with yours there.

I also responded in agreement to Boaz's post, but that reply is awaiting moderation (I think because I tried to put a link in it?), so I won't say more about it here.

 

[Culhwch]

I have to admit that I fail to be upset when adaptations deviate from the original source. This is as true for LOTR (where I saw the films before I read the book) as it is for Dune (where I read the book first). I liked the film, I, Robot**, and also Asimov's robot stories. I like them for different reasons. They share a title and some characteristics, but they are different. Even if the film's producers had been punctilious in sticking to the stories, their film would still have been (and would have had to have been) different and I would have enjoyed it (or not) based on its own merits..

I absolutely agree with you here, Urse. I get aggravated when people argue against a film because 'it wasn't like the book'. Different mediums altogether, so it's going to be a different product. Usually when I dislike an adaptation it's because of the disappointment of unrealised potential, or just plain poor execution. The second and third Harry Potter movies are like this for me - the second I thought a poor film of a good book, the third an exceptional film of a good book. Both shared the potential to be great, but only one succeeded (in my eyes).

I hope the Others are not as cheesy as the Ents.

Wait, are you saying that the Ents of the film were cheesier than the Ents of the book? Because JRRT had the market cornered in cheese long before PJ got around to filming those books - case in point: Tom Bombadil.

I also responded in agreement to Boaz's post, but that reply is awaiting moderation (I think because I tried to put a link in it?), so I won't say more about it here.

Post approved, and now viewable, chairface!

 

[The Imp]

Good to see Brian in here!!!

Also, I think I'm a well known Catelyn hater in this forum... I don't want anyone to think I wish her out of the story... In my estimation, she's the most necessary character (not the coolest, the noblest, nor the sexiest) to bringing the first three books to TV. I believe I'm also known here as a big, big fan of the Lannister brothers... yet, as much as it pains me to say, Catelyn is more vital to the whole story.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

The first time I read the series I liked Cat. I'm finding that with each re-read (I can't honestly remember if my current one is my 2nd or 3rd) Cat finds new ways to piss me off, and becomes more grating, whining and annnoying.

I don't want to derail this into a hate Cat thread, just expressing solidarity with Boaz

 

[Culhwch]

Because Boaz hates her, I love Cat. Plus, she's a redhead. Love those redheads.

Actually, looks-wise I think that Jennifer Ehle might be the actor furthest from how I pictured the character. I'll be interested to see her in the final result.

Hopefully we get a bit of leaked footage from the pilot at some point...

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

To use another Harry Potter comparison (though I'm not particularly a fan of those movies) the first series may hinge on the performances of the key adults leads; Eddard, Catelyn, Jaime, Robert & Cersei. Note that I leave Tyrion out here - not that he's not a great character but just in terms of directing events, he doesn't really come into his own until series/book 2 in my opinion.

But Dany & the Lannister clan apart, really the series will hang on the performances of the child actors to a large degree. Sansa, Arya, Jon and possibly Robb/Bran will have to carry the dramatic tension forward for the rest of the books up to this point. That's a big responsibility on what is essentially unproven acting talent, so I hope they do well and get all the necessary support to pull it off.

 

[Ursa major]

I agree, WS.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, in a thread about The Wire, I'm not a great fan of child actors. However, my reason for mentioning this issue in that thread was to record my admiration for the way HBO (and the writers and the actors) made me forget this prejudice, and in scene after scene dominated by children.

We can only hope that HBO manage to do something of the same in this show.

 

[The Imp]

I agree, WS.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, in a thread about The Wire, I'm not a great fan of child actors. However, my reason for mentioning this issue in that thread was to record my admiration for the way HBO (and the writers and the actors) made me forget this prejudice, and in scene after scene dominated by children.

We can only hope that HBO manage to do something of the same in this show.

HBO also did a pretty amazing job with The Sopranos, and although the series wasn't dominated, children were an important part of the story. If how HBO handled kids in both of these fine series is any indication of how AGOT will, the kids will be great.

PS- I think that Dany will be made a bit older, say 17 maybe, or even 18. The actress who is playing her (Tamzin Merchant) is 23, but could easily pass for younger. I think this decision is to avoid all the negativity a 13 year old Dany would bring

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Oh there's no way they'll have Dany be 13, no matter how much George cites medieval ages of marriage. Exactly the same way as certain negative stereotypes around race or gender aren't prevalent. Even in Deadwood & Rome, which were based on real historical events, were careful in that respect.

Time, as they say, has moved on.