OT: Game of Thrones (official thread) (warning: some spoilers)

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by steeledude

I just want to say as a book reader--this series surpasses the fantasy genre. I read upthread Martin being compared to Jordan and Goodkind, and I'm just going to say not on their best days. Martin writes far better, more compelling storylines. Those first three books are a thing of beauty. The fourth was a definite bore...but with the fifth slated to be released soon I think there is a chance for redemption.

I wholeheartedly recommend people read the books first. They are phenomenal.

One thing I am upset about is how Jaime isn't portrayed as the ultimate bad ass he is in the books. That scene where he and Ned fought in the series was crap, Ned in the books wouldn't have stood a chance against Jaime. When Jaime got to fighting in the books, as a reader, you got terrified. The Whispering Wood was a real missed opportunity.

{ His supposed prowess is mostly rep from tournament wins. In the book his armies get defeated with relative ease by a mere boy (Robb) and he never actually has to fight anyone in single combat until he and Brienne go at it. Plus, as he laments in the books, he's now "old" (late 30s) and really peaked at about 17. He's done nothing more than serve as a glorified body guard for going on 20 years. }

[McDman]

Originally Posted by steeledude

I just want to say as a book reader--this series surpasses the fantasy genre. I read upthread Martin being compared to Jordan and Goodkind, and I'm just going to say not on their best days. Martin writes far better, more compelling storylines. Those first three books are a thing of beauty. The fourth was a definite bore...but with the fifth slated to be released soon I think there is a chance for redemption.

I wholeheartedly recommend people read the books first. They are phenomenal.

One thing I am upset about is how Jaime isn't portrayed as the ultimate bad ass he is in the books. That scene where he and Ned fought in the series was crap, Ned in the books wouldn't have stood a chance against Jaime. When Jaime got to fighting in the books, as a reader, you got terrified. The Whispering Wood was a real missed opportunity.

It's been awhile since I read the. First one but I remember the fight being closer than that.

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by steeledude

I just want to say as a book reader--this series surpasses the fantasy genre. I read upthread Martin being compared to Jordan and Goodkind, and I'm just going to say not on their best days.

I'm just going to disgree here. Martin is the best pure writer, but over the long run, the universe in WoT is far more interesting. Goodkind's a blowhard.

Of course, I would argue that Sanderson and Rothfuss are better then the lot of them.

One thing I am upset about is how Jaime isn't portrayed as the ultimate bad ass he is in the books. That scene where he and Ned fought in the series was crap, Ned in the books wouldn't have stood a chance against Jaime. When Jaime got to fighting in the books, as a reader, you got terrified. The Whispering Wood was a real missed opportunity.

Our perceptions are really different then. Jamie's not particularly effective ever. Tyrion was a better commander in the first book then Jamie is, and we never really see Jamie do anything except loose battles, **** Cersei and generally b**** and moan.

[steeledude]

Originally Posted by McDman

It's been awhile since I read the. First one but I remember the fight being closer than that.

There was no fight. Jaime rode away and his men killed the northmen and stabbed Ned. It was actually a far more descriptive and intense moment than the show. Nerd that my friends and I are, we pulled the scene from the book while my buddy read it aloud after that happened in the show (because the show's scene seemed very weak).

[steeledude]

Originally Posted by lostknight

I'm just going to disgree here. Martin is the best pure writer, but over the long run, the universe in WoT is far more interesting. Goodkind's a blowhard.

Of course, I would argue that Sanderson and Rothfuss are better then the lot of them.




Our perceptions are really different then. Jamie's not particularly effective ever. Tyrion was a better commander in the first book then Jamie is, and we never really see Jamie do anything except loose battles, **** Cersei and generally b**** and moan.

You're right, he is built up as essentially ineffective overall, but his reputation was one that brought fear early on. And in the show he never shows that. And remember in the Whispering Wood, he would have killed Robb, he was cutting Northmen down left and right charging Robb, and it was Greywind who intervened and saved him. The bastard was a poor leader and did blundering things, but his skill was supposed to be amazing.

[s0phr0syne]

I'm only a show-watcher, haven't read the books, but...

I thought his reputation was well demonstrated in the scene where he is confronted by Robb after being captured and his proposes to settle the whole war by fighting Robb. Regardless of whether he is actually amazing or not (became the "Kingslayer" by a literal back stab), Robb respected Jamie's rep enough to not fall into that trap.

Also Ned seemed to have his own skepticism about Jamie's opponents, etc.

[myMind]

Originally Posted by steeledude

There was no fight. Jaime rode away and his men killed the northmen and stabbed Ned.

Ned's horse actually gets spooked by the fighting and falls on Ned, breaking his leg. He never gets cut in the book, til his head is removed at the end.

[McDman]

Originally Posted by steeledude

There was no fight. Jaime rode away and his men killed the northmen and stabbed Ned. It was actually a far more descriptive and intense moment than the show. Nerd that my friends and I are, we pulled the scene from the book while my buddy read it aloud after that happened in the show (because the show's scene seemed very weak).

It's crazy how I can't remember something like that. I do remember the horse breaking his leg now.

[Jesterhole]

I don't see how people who don't read the books would enjoy the show. There is too much missing information. The larger plot hasn't even been hinted at yet, the three eyed crow and Hodor are an afterthought. Shae's character is all wrong. In fact, the only one that I'm impressed with so far is Dany. The rest aren't nearly as interesting as their book counterparts.

Tyrion still steals the show, and you don't even get to hear all the hilarous inner dialogue he has during his chapters. Such a waste...

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

I don't see how people who don't read the books would enjoy the show. There is too much missing information. The larger plot hasn't even been hinted at yet, the three eyed crow and Hodor are an afterthought. Shae's character is all wrong. In fact, the only one that I'm impressed with so far is Dany. The rest aren't nearly as interesting as their book counterparts.

Tyrion still steals the show, and you don't even get to hear all the hilarous inner dialogue he has during his chapters. Such a waste...

You sound like anyone who's had a favorite book translated to film. I've never read a word of these books, but I can say this one of the more impressive TV shows I've seen in a while, on every level (and it has also has provided more than enough information every episode to make it a task to keep up at times).

Understand that novels are uniquely suited for 1) putting you in the mind of a character and 2) transmitting large amounts of detail and information. Film simply can't do those things well, nor should it try. A great book and a great TV show have to do very different things in terms of pacing and balancing screen time for characters. Compared to a book series running thousands of pages the show might look simplified, but so would any TV show, even those as complicated as The Wire or The Sopranos. Likewise, what they can provide (striking visuals, great acting performances, etc) can't be replicated on paper.

Take them for what they are. I love books about travel and adventure, putting me in middle of the head and experiences of the writer. But I also love watching documentaries and shows about those same places for totally different reasons.

I would also note that, while given little screen time, it's been made fairly explicit that the visions of the raven and several of the minor characters are going to be really important down the road. We may not have read as much, but we TV viewers aren't so slow.

[Kid A]

Also, found some great charts mapping the character relationship throughout Season 1: http://hauteslides.com/2011/05/game-...relationships/

If you scroll down you can see one for each episode. As I mentioned in my tl;dr message above, you can see that even in episode 1 there was more than enough to keep a tv viewer spinning to keep up.

[steeledude]

Originally Posted by McDman

It's crazy how I can't remember something like that. I do remember the horse breaking his leg now.

I know, I always remembered Jaime as being there through the whole scene too. It is a phenomenal scene in the books though.

[RhymesayersDU]

Originally Posted by Kid A

You sound like anyone who's had a favorite book translated to film. I've never read a word of these books, but I can say this one of the more impressive TV shows I've seen in a while, on every level (and it has also has provided more than enough information every episode to make it a task to keep up at times).

I want to echo this. I've never read these books either, but it's an awesome TV show. And I know the feeling of reading a book and the movie or TV show not doing it exactly how it was written, so I get the original post as well. But the GOT is awesome.

[McDman]

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

I don't see how people who don't read the books would enjoy the show. There is too much missing information. The larger plot hasn't even been hinted at yet, the three eyed crow and Hodor are an afterthought. Shae's character is all wrong. In fact, the only one that I'm impressed with so far is Dany. The rest aren't nearly as interesting as their book counterparts.

Tyrion still steals the show, and you don't even get to hear all the hilarous inner dialogue he has during his chapters. Such a waste...

I'm hoping the next season they won't treat it like a miniseries and limit it to 10 episodes., it needs to be around 20. If that happens then they can do the series justice and go inm depth.

I have a feeling they weren't sure that it was going to get picked up for a second season so they limited the first.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by McDman

I'm hoping the next season they won't treat it like a miniseries and limit it to 10 episodes., it needs to be around 20. If that happens then they can do the series justice and go inm depth.

I have a feeling they weren't sure that it was going to get picked up for a second season so they limited the first.

Typically, HBO seems to do 10-13 episodes a year for it's hour long shows. I don't think there is any chance we would see a 20 episode season from HBO.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

I don't see how people who don't read the books would enjoy the show.

I think you have it exactly backwards, and your post basically proves my point with your complaints about the show. I never enjoy movie/tv versions of books because you can never convey as much on screen as you can in a book. The screen version is almost always going to be inferior. I really like this show and have never read the books, and never will.

[underrated29]

This is the reason why I am not reading the books. Maybe after the shows are completely done.


But when, ever in the history of film and books has the movie ever come close to the novel?

Answer- NEVER. The book is 100% always better. Everytime.



So of course, you are not going to like it as much because you were able to use your imagination and get so much more indepth focus and details from the book. Its just the way it.


For me personally as one who originally had no intention of ever watching the show. I think it is quite possibly the best show I have ever seen on TV as far as series or anything else goes. They done censer as much, its vulger at times with words, and tons of nudity, and just the brashness each person envokes. It actually makes you feel like you are living in those times and not watching a movie about those times....Like lord of the rings- felt like I was watching a movie of those times, this series I feel like I am IN those times because it is so much more real. (to me anyhow)


I know people listed their fav characters but I do not know all the names yet. Here are mine:

1. the imp midget- dude cracks me up-by far my fav.
2. the snow? boy with the wolf that became a night watcher
3. the half bro or friend of the new king of the north-whose father faught in the rebellion, he also saved the kid who got pushed out the window with his bow and arrow- that guy
4. Khaleesi- cuz she is badass, i bet she is the ultimate badass and super hot to go with it.
5. Aya- cuz she is a little badass too. Stabbing fat kids and all.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by underrated29

For me personally as one who originally had no intention of ever watching the show. I think it is quite possibly the best show I have ever seen on TV as far as series or anything else goes. They done censer as much, its vulger at times with words, and tons of nudity, and just the brashness each person envokes. It actually makes you feel like you are living in those times and not watching a movie about those times....Like lord of the rings- felt like I was watching a movie of those times, this series I feel like I am IN those times because it is so much more real. (to me anyhow)

If you like all those things about Game of Thrones, you need to check out Stars Spartacus series. Much the same raw feel. The other two HBO series that are gone, but had that same edge and worth watching if you have seen them was Rome and Deadwood.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by underrated29

This is the reason why I am not reading the books. Maybe after the shows are completely done.


But when, ever in the history of film and books has the movie ever come close to the novel?

Answer- NEVER. The book is 100% always better. Everytime.

Bull**** - that's your opinion and that's it. One of my favorite examples would be Jurassic Park. It was a great book but when I saw the movie, I was blown away. Those dinosaur's were better then what my imagination came up with. It really depends on who's making the movie.

[myMind]

Originally Posted by underrated29

I know people listed their fav characters but I do not know all the names yet. Here are mine:

1. the imp midget- dude cracks me up-by far my fav. -Tyrion Lannister
2. the snow? boy with the wolf that became a night watcher -Jon Snow
3. the half bro or friend of the new king of the north-whose father faught in the rebellion, he also saved the kid who got pushed out the window with his bow and arrow- that guy -Theon Greyjoy
4. Khaleesi- cuz she is badass, i bet she is the ultimate badass and super hot to go with it. -Daenerys Targaryen
5. Aya- cuz she is a little badass too. Stabbing fat kids and all. -Arya Stark

fixed

[myMind]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Bull**** - that's your opinion and that's it. One of my favorite examples would be Jurassic Park. It was a great book but when I saw the movie, I was blown away. Those dinosaur's were better then what my imagination came up with. It really depends on who's making the movie.

this, and Lord of the Rings came damn close

[underrated29]

Originally Posted by fixedMind

fixed

Gracias!



And interesting. You two are the only two I have ever heard to say a movie is better than the book. Not that I take public polls on that or anything like that but still.

I wonder who else thinks that way.?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by underrated29

Gracias!



And interesting. You two are the only two I have ever heard to say a movie is better than the book. Not that I take public polls on that or anything like that but still.

I wonder who else thinks that way.?

I'd say there are several movies better than the books:

The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
Jaws

and others.

Generally these fall into the category of "Hey that book has an overall good story but the actual details are terrible, let's adapt it and make it better". It's roughly equivalent to why Empire Strikes back is far and away the best Star Wars movie -- Lucas wasn't involved in the details but rather just the overall story.

There there's the movies that are "based" on books but both are good for different reasons. A good example of that is Starship Troopers. The movie and the book are nothing alike -- not thematically, not based on plot or even basic characterization. However, both the book at the movie are "good" (IMHO). The movie is good because of its satirical content and the book is good because of its philosophical content (the book follows Rico's military career from his recruit days to high ranking officer days and is a examination of civic responsibility, sufferage and the realities of war and the people who fight).

In the case of Game of Thrones - I am impressed at the creators ability to take something that is a good on screen adaption of a much more "heady" story. By that I mean a lot of the content of the books is based on the inner monologue of the characters (Tyrion in particular) with the action sequences generally left primarily up to the reader's imagination. To see this type of novel adapted to screen in a terrible fashion, see the original Dune movie.

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

I'd say there are several movies better than the books:

The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
Jaws

and others.

Generally these fall into the category of "Hey that book has an overall good story but the actual details are terrible, let's adapt it and make it better". It's roughly equivalent to why Empire Strikes back is far and away the best Star Wars movie -- Lucas wasn't involved in the details but rather just the overall story.

There there's the movies that are "based" on books but both are good for different reasons. A good example of that is Starship Troopers. The movie and the book are nothing alike -- not thematically, not based on plot or even basic characterization. However, both the book at the movie are "good" (IMHO). The movie is good because of its satirical content and the book is good because of its philosophical content (the book follows Rico's military career from his recruit days to high ranking officer days and is a examination of civic responsibility, sufferage and the realities of war and the people who fight).

In the case of Game of Thrones - I am impressed at the creators ability to take something that is a good on screen adaption of a much more "heady" story. By that I mean a lot of the content of the books is based on the inner monologue of the characters (Tyrion in particular) with the action sequences generally left primarily up to the reader's imagination. To see this type of novel adapted to screen in a terrible fashion, see the original Dune movie.

Fantastic post

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by fixedMind

this, and Lord of the Rings came damn close

No, it didn't. THe trilogies are probably the best adaption that COULD have been done but they didn't even come close to the books.

Except in one small regard. THe movie Balrog was just kick ass.