"TV Fan's" Backlash (SOME SPOILERS)

[The Ace]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Yes, there's a difference between book and TV audiences, book audiences have functioning brains, even in the US.

Thankfully, the mindset that wanted to film, 'Mort,' but leave out Death, invite Jane Austin to do a lecture tour or drop the, 'III,' from, 'The Madness of King George III,' because audiences wouldn't go if they hadn't seen I and II, is pretty rare except in Hollywood's higher echelons.

 

[Ursa major]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Could posters here please remember that this thread is in the TV section, not the Author section, of the Chrons? There shouldn't really be even hints at possible spoilers in this thread.

I know it isn't done on purpose, but there may be people coming here who will see later seasons still not having read the (relevant) books. I'm sure none of us would want their enjoyment (or whatever) spolied.

 

[Vladd67]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

So the readers are the "wow crowd"? Personally, I think there is much less gratuitous nudity in the books.

I took the term wow crowd to mean World of Warcraft crowd, it seemed to me that EW reader Tamcamry seems to think that TV audiences are somehow more involved with the story that is fed to them than readers who have to use their imagination to create the images themselves because of course if you read fantasy novels you must be a nerd who spends all their spare time online playing WoW.
I hope some of these poor sensitive viewers who spend so much time investing in the main character never see Edward Woodward playing Sergeant Neil Howie.

 

[Dave]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

I've not watched the TV series, nor have I read the books. So thanks, you've just spoiled everything for me!

Some of the comments i.e. book readers vs. TV watchers are just empty-headed, but I still think there is a valid point to be made. A TV series is different to a book. It has nothing to do with "investment in characters" but I think I understand where those commentators are coming from. If HBO heavily promoted this new series as "Starring Sean Bean" there would be some expectation for the "Star" of the show to continue to be in in. Those "in the know" find it all hugely funny, but many people do watch a TV show simply because they "like the actor and he is always in good things." Now, before you all pile onto me about "that's the beauty of the writing" and "that's what makes it better than the usual TV fare", I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it was wrong of HBO to promote the show in that way, well knowing that would be the expectation from many of their viewers. They did it deliberately and knowingly.

 

[digs]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

I don't see how you could describe HBO's promotion as "wrong". I don't see anything unethical or immoral or even offensive about it. To me, if anything, it looks like they overestimated their audience, assuming that perhaps people were ready for something new and different.

Apart from which, I don't really see what other options there were for promotion. If you had to pick the main main character in AGoT, it's Ned. His storyline is the titular game of thrones. Tyrion is arguably a contender in that regard, but I feel Ned's storyline more clearly illustrates what the game is actually about. Since this makes him the lead character, they cast a fairly prominent actor in the role - and they then promoted this, as you would expect in any TV show.

I see it as nothing more than a clever transition from novel to television by HBO. In my mind a poster or teaser trailer for a TV show is roughly parallel to a blurb for a book. All the blurbs for AGoT clearly establish Ned as the main character ("As Warden of the North, Lord Eddard Stark counts it a curse when..."). Book and TV show: both are working to subvert the same cliche. In order to do that - and milk it to its full effect - they need to build it up as much as possible. To that end the "deceit" in promotion is entirely necessary. What would be the point in underplaying Ned, or shoving him off to one side? Then what's the point in even telling that story? No one would care.

Entertainment is most entertaining at its most visceral: when it has some kind of deep emotional impact. HBO did everything they could to make Ned's end powerful. It may have caused a backlash on Twitter, but all that does is generate more attention. We'll have to wait til the next episode to see if there's any drop in numbers, but I doubt it. I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who watched the last episode, regardless of how happy they were with the outcome, got their money's worth in terms of entertainment and emotion. And now I think others will latch onto that based on what they've seen and heard online.

I think it's a win all round: for GRRM, for clever, engaging storytelling, and of course for the TV show.

 

[Ursa major]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

The trouble is, Dave, Ned is the central character of the book, A Game of Thrones. He has the most chapters; he is at the centre of most of the intrigue (in the sense, perhaps, that he's the eye of the storm); he has the noble character against which all the others' are measured and found wanting.

Without Ned showing that nobility exists in the world of ASoIaF, we might more easily accept the amorality of that world. And that would be tempting: most of the other characters are too busy trying to save their own skins to ponder much on what is wrong and what is right. And Ned's fate underlines this: he does the "right" thing by everyone and he dies, having put his whole family in the firing line.


Most of the characters, even the ones we love to hate, are not evil: they have valid reasons for their actions (from their place in history to their personal circumstances). And this, more than anything else (even the twisted, not to say contorted, nature of the plot), is why ASoIaF is so good: if we dare, we can place ourselves in the position of most (though not all) of the characters and find that we might not behave any more "honourably" than they do. (Take, for instance, Jaime's appalling act at the end of episode 1 of Game of Thrones: if you were Jaime, would you hold Bran's life more dear than your own and those of your sister and your three children?)


Because of all that, Ned is, and has to be, the main character in season 1 of Game of Thrones. He has to be there in the spotlight; and being so, he has to have top billing.

 

[Dave]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Considering what digs and Ursa just said I'm trying to think of another comparable situation in another TV show to make a comparison, and quite frankly I can't find one. So, maybe this was just inevitable?

Am I right in thinking that the Season is over half way through? So, in actual fact, he does appear in most of the Season anyway? If so, then what is the problem - I mean to say, in TV shows actors often leave at the end of Seasons so there was never a guarantee Sean Bean would be in Season 2. Some of the critical comments made do strike me as a little odd in that respect.

 

[Ursa major]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Ned died at the end of the ninth episode (of ten). So yes: the complaints are rather overdone.

 

[Mesanna]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Digs, everything you said +1.

HBO are not wrong in promoting Ned as the star. Sean Bean arguably is the most famous person in the cast, so it makes sense to use a big name. Plus early on in the show, and in the book, you believe Ned is the pivotal character of the story. So you made assumptions that were completely thrown back in your face in episode nine. And instead of sitting back feeling gobsmacked and thinking "OMFG, this is incredible; I've never read/watched anything like this", you take to the internet and bitch cos you feel what? That you were set up? Ripped off? To be honest, I think people threatening to cancel their subscriptions solely cos Ned died are muppets. Sorry.

People I've spoken to were stunned at the audacity of killing off the "main" character, but I think everyone is now desperate to know what happens next. Personally, I like have my perceptions messed with. I think it's the sign of good storytelling, that I can watch a prominent character be killed, or that I can start off loving/hating character X, then later on do a complete U-turn. Do people really want more of the formulaic shows that Hollywood churns out by the bucket-load?

 

[Vladd67]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

. Do people really want more of the formulaic shows that Hollywood churns out by the bucket-load?

It would seem so yes. I like the way the usual conventions seem to be shaken up a little it makes more interesting viewing. Take the series Boardwalk Empire although the story is based on historic events and people the writers admit to playing with the facts to keep the audience guessing. In Deadwood the ending did not come as a surprise as I looked up the history of the town and knew what was going to happen. And now I'm rambling and lost track of my point oh well

 

[Dornish First Sword]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

I bet all these people who disliked ned being shortened by a head (provided they continue watching and we get that far) will be cheering at Joffs wedding.

Funnily enough both are the reactions that will completely justify once again how awesome of a storyteller Martin.

 

[Bazza]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

Absolutely love the Princess Bride quote Boaz. That's exactly what will happen with the new viewers.

Ever since HBO started the rumblings that they might consider rolling with D&D (Dan and Dave) with their idea of Game of Thrones, I've been eagerly awaiting news on whether it would actually happen. After it got picked up, I eagerly awaited news about casting, filming, loyalty to the book, etc.

Then my focus shifted to, yes this is really happening, but will it be successful? Will the mainstream audience buy into a straight up fantasy show? So now I eagerly await critical acclaim, reactions, opinions to the show, ratings. The more people that like this show, the more of it I get to see.

I see this "backlash" as a beautiful thing. I think it builds buzz for the show. The ratings have been slowly climbing as the whispers of its validity as a quality show build. When people hear "oh dang, they killed the main character of their new show in the first season? Who does that? That's crazy, maybe I'll check it out." Then they start to read about the show, see the rave reviews, watch the first season, get hooked, and sign on for the second season. There will be a 100 of those for every 1 that actually follows through with ditching the show. Probably a lot more actually.

Like they say, any news is good news.

 

[purple_kathryn]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

I personally found the red wedding far more of shock when reading the books than what happened to Ned

It was then I was wondering if anyone was going to make it till the end!

 

[Ursa major]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

We still all seem to be forgetting that this should be a spoiler-free thread.


Perhaps it should be moved to the GRRM section in Authors (and with "TV" somehow removed from its title).

 

[The Judge]

Re: "TV Fan's" Backlash

I'll leave a decision about moving it to Brian or Cul, Ursa, since they are more involved with the whole thing. In the meantime, I'll add a spoiler warning to the title, though, in case there are others coming here who are new to the story.

 

[Ursa major]

Thanks, TJ.

 

[nixie]

As we were asked to keep the GRRM TV forum spoiler free, I'm moving this across to his authors forum.

 

[The Imp]

People having this strong of a reaction to a character's death speaks to how strong the story is, and how beautifully that death was set up. For me, as a reader and viewer, Ned's death was what separated GRRM's fiction from that of everyone else

Older posters might remember a TV show called Hill Street Blues. They were about 4 episodes into the first season, and two of the stars of the show walked into a bar to investigate a robbery (or maybe they just walked in randomly, I don't quite remember). Anyway, regular motion turned into slow motion, and they were both shot dead. I still remember the look on one of the cop's face as the scene progressed. I think this was the first time that anyone had the guts to do something such as that. Ned's death made that seem like an episode of Sesame Street, which is apparently what some viewers would be more comfortable watching.

If the series ends up being cancelled because too many people don't want to be upset, and only want to watch things which end happily ever after, Ned's death scene will still be one of the great scenes in TV history. I'll still have seasons one and two, and my books to re-read. Those folks will have Bert, Ernie and The Count.

 

[Ursa major]

Thanks, nixie.

 

[Needle]

Speaking as someone who was introduced to the books via the TV show...I cannot see how the show could've allowed Ned to live. Ned's actions had far-reaching consequences and one of those was his death. It would've been a complete cop-out to let him live. Also, I can't see any way they could incorporate an alive Ned into the rest of the series. His death was the catalyst for much of what followed.

I like that none of the characters are safe and that any of them could die at any moment. That doesn't make me any less emotionally invested in them. In fact, I think I'm even more emotionally invested in them because I so desperately want the ones I like to live.

Ned could not be allowed to live! It is that simple, a large part of the rest of the story revolves around reactions to his death.

I read a statement (can't remember by whom) a long time ago saying people have gotten used to stories in which the core group of heros miraculously survives, always, no matter what, well this is not the story for them!

I agree with most of the comments above, especially ctg when he/she says that TV audiences have been "Disneyfied".

I found this comment in the article particularly offensive:

“Most of you who think this was some sort of brilliant move or something don’t understand the difference between a book audience and a TV audience,” argued EW reader Tamcamry. “TV audiences need to invest in characters."

Is this person implying that book readers don't get emotionally invested in the characters in their favourite books? I would argue that book readers are even more invested, because reading, to me, requires a greater level of intellectualism on the part of the reader. Between visualising the characters and the settings, you construct a whole little world in your head, rather than being spoon-fed someone else's interpretation.

It offends me for someone to say that with all of the time and emotion I have but into this story, that people think TV watchers are somehow more "invested' in the story! Seriously, I mean seriously!

Warning... A Game of Thrones and The Princess Bride SPOILERS ahead



I think that the readers of the books understand very well the difference between the two.


I understand about becoming emotionally invested in characters. But is emotional all there is? What about time? AGOT in ten episodes, including the repeated credits, total about nine hours and ten minutes. Reading AGOT takes each reader a different amount of time, but it's probably eighteen hours, on average. The investment in time is definitely more for the reader than the viewer.


After fifteen chapters out of the first fifty-nine in AGOT, all readers are invested in Eddard. We've read about his love for Catelyn. We've read of his love for his children. We've read about his loyalty to his friends. We've read of his unwillingness to sully his family name and his honor. And we've read much about his memories and dreams of his father, brother, and sister. I've not yet seen or heard mention of Lyanna on the show except for Robert's visit to her tomb. What do viewers know of "Promise me, Ned"? What do they know of the woman in the bed of blood and roses? What do viewers know about the quarrel between Eddard and Robert after the sack of King's Landing? What do they know of the Sword of the Morning, the White Bull, and Ser Oswell Whent? What do they know of Howland Reed? What do they know of Eddard's silent promises to tell Sansa and Jon about his decisions? What do they know of his faithfulness to Catelyn in turning down Cersei's sexual favors?

And what about the Arya and Brienne POVs? These chapters specifically show the plight of the common people. These chapters show the ins and outs of family, religion, and social hierarchy in daily life. GRRM has something to say on social justice.

So Eddard lived a good and honest life. He's probably in Westerosi heaven. But what about Littlefinger, Cersei, Tyrion, Sansa, the Hound, Arya, Dany, Bran and Jaime? What of their ambitions and desires? Will Eddard's children suffer or succeed? Will they follow in his honorable footsteps or become what he despised in their desire to avenge him? Will any of Eddard's enemies be inspired by his life and death enough to renounce their wicked ways? Is redemption possible?

And for those who loved Eddard, I must ask, What about Robb? What about Jon? How will his teenage sons trained to command soldiers deal with his murder? Aren't their stories compelling?

Personally, I feel that reading requires more of my attention, imagination, and memory than viewing the television. The only way I have a greater investment in the show is monetary. A used paperback version of AGOT is $5 while three months of HBO is running me around $200.

So the readers are the "wow crowd"? Personally, I think there is much less gratuitous nudity in the books.

So... the "mass appeal just got beheaded"? When the going gets tough, should we quit reading? All of Eddard's loved ones are now in jeopardy without him to protect them, but they must be the characters that Tamcamry doesn't "care much about". If Eddard was all the story had going for it, then I'd agree whole heartedly with Tamcamry. But really, don't the characters who manipulated and outfoxed Eddard seem interesting? Shouldn't viewers desire to see them get theirs? I think the boy from The Princess Bride had a better concept of stories than this...



The questions are whether the viewers find the rest of the plot and characters interesting and whether they trust the author who has given them such a treat up tothis point.

That being said, will the series survive the death of Eddard? I'm not sure.

I'm also not sure if HBO really has intentions of finishing the series. Unless, the show's second season is a sensation, then I think that HBO will seriously think about shutting it down. HBO is in business to make money. Amen. So AGOT will not need to be a critical success, it will need to be a viewing success. If it becomes a water fountain conversation mainstay, if Matt Groenig parodies it, if tens of millions of people worldwide only have HBO for the express purpose of watching AGOT (i.e. me and my friends), then HBO will judge it to be a show worth finishing.

Thanks for your investment of time in reading this post.

Boaz, I wish I had your talent! How do you manage to say just what I feel! My first thoughts after reading of Ned's death was "What will become of his family now?! How will they survive this?!" "These rotten people(Lannisters I guess, I was thinking) surely can't get away with this and live happily ever after?!"

Digs, everything you said +1.

HBO are not wrong in promoting Ned as the star. Sean Bean arguably is the most famous person in the cast, so it makes sense to use a big name. Plus early on in the show, and in the book, you believe Ned is the pivotal character of the story. So you made assumptions that were completely thrown back in your face in episode nine. And instead of sitting back feeling gobsmacked and thinking "OMFG, this is incredible; I've never read/watched anything like this", you take to the internet and bitch cos you feel what? That you were set up? Ripped off? To be honest, I think people threatening to cancel their subscriptions solely cos Ned died are muppets. Sorry.

I am one of the people who got HBO solely to watch aGoT. If Ned had not been killed, my subscription would have immediately been canceled. Because no matter how much I have loved the series so far, anything after his non-execution would be a total lie! Not the story I love so much!

People having this strong of a reaction to a character's death speaks to how strong the story is, and how beautifully that death was set up. For me, as a reader and viewer, Ned's death was what separated GRRM's fiction from that of everyone else


If the series ends up being cancelled because too many people don't want to be upset, and only want to watch things which end happily ever after, Ned's death scene will still be one of the great scenes in TV history. I'll still have seasons one and two, and my books to re-read. Those folks will have Bert, Ernie and The Count.

Here, here!! I agree 100%!

Now for tonight we will see just how good it can be! Bring on Dany's babies!!