A Game of Thrones
discussion
Game of thrones books way too similar to the show
message 1:
by
Emilie
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 28, 2013 06:35PM
I watched the first episode before reading the first book. Does anyone else find that they took too much from the book?
reply
|
flag
No, I'm grateful that they're doing such a fine adaptation of the book, unlike too many films/tv shows.
Agreed. I was hoping they would add in some spaceships, dinosaurs, and bacon-loving libertarians to make it better. Instead they just stuck with the same political intrigue and sex. And there are hardly any dragons. The show would be so much better if everyone was a dragon.
I loved that they followed the book. The book itself was amazing. To see the book come to life in the show, it just can't get any better than that.If it had strayed from the book, I can't imagine how bad it could have turned out. The Walking Dead would be a good example. While I do like the show on its own. But the side of me that read the comic is just mad at how things are going.
the second season took far more liberties. in my opinion there were some great scenes but overall some of the more important plotlines from that book were handled carelessly. the first season was excellent and much more true to the text.
i have no idea why you'd attempt an adaptation if you weren't going to glean heavily from the original text.
I opened this thread, assuming that the first poster was just being quirky funny.When you're adapting a book with some good ideas, that fails to realize them, you have an interesting challenge, trying to shape a better story from your imperfect materials.
When you're working from a book as rich with effective characters, plots and writing as 'Game of Thrones' (or, e.g. 'Lord of the Rings'), your best hope is to capture as much of the books onscreen as you can. For every digression you added, you'd have to leave something better and more integral to George R. R. Martin's complex vision out.
Brecht wrote: "For every digression you added, you'd have to leave something better and more integral to George R. R. Martin's complex vision out. "i agree, and while the digressions were useful in the first season setting up characters, filling in back stories and history, creating dialogue from largely 3rd-person editorial narrative i felt that this approach was glaring and their omissions and edits were far too bold in some places in the second season.
Josh Wrote "i felt that this approach was glaring and their omissions and edits were far too bold in some places in the second season."And, if you watched Peter Jackson's first 'Hobbit' movie, you can see how the man who did such an ace job capturing the story and flavor of LOTR onscreen, is now more interested in developing his own ideas than realizing Tolkein's 'Hobbit'. But 'The Hobbit' is a much lesser book, and I think Jackson really wanted to squeeze three moneymakers out of it.
C.C. wrote: "Agreed. I was hoping they would add in some spaceships, dinosaurs, and bacon-loving libertarians to make it better. Instead they just stuck with the same political intrigue and sex. And there ar..."Bacon-loving libertarians = Others
Dinosaurs = Dragons
Spaceships = the Comet
WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE
but which side is which?
second season was different in many parts. :(and i dint like it much :(
I agree, this seems like a silly question. How can you take "too much from the book" when a series is supposed to be an adaptation of that very thing?
They make a lot of small pragmatic changes which begin to snowball as the series goes on.
in the fourth season we'll be introduced to a large flying wombat named piggers whom only arya can see. he will be cgi and voiced by david duchovny.
Bill wrote: "They make a lot of small pragmatic changes which begin to snowball as the series goes on."And then it breaks off into a whole Lord of the Flies mashup when the Dothraki kill piggers and go boar hunting...
When the first season was airing and they came to the episode where Ned Stark was beheaded, there was an uproar by fans of the show who hadn't read the books. Somebody mentioned that they could have gone against the book, and NOT killed him.My thought was "And then what? Ned has no role in the rest of the series. You don't kill him off and he-what?-spends the rest of the series in the dungeon?"
Matthew wrote: "I agree, this seems like a silly question. How can you take "too much from the book" when a series is supposed to be an adaptation of that very thing?"My thoughts exactly, I think they have done a great job adapting the books so far
Josh wrote: "in the fourth season we'll be introduced to a large flying wombat named piggers whom only arya can see. he will be cgi and voiced by david duchovny."I heard that too...
Emilie wrote: "I watched the first episode before reading the first book. Does anyone else find that they took too much from the book?"Unless the book was crap to begin with, when making a film or video adaptation, it is philosophically, ethically, artistically, and aesthetically impossible to take too much from the book.
Michael wrote: "Bacon-loving libertarians = OthersDinosaurs = Dragons
Spaceships = the Comet
WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE "
Hehehehe, ^5
MJ wrote: "When the first season was airing and they came to the episode where Ned Stark was beheaded, there was an uproar by fans of the show who hadn't read the books. Somebody mentioned that they could hav..."Besides Sean Bean can't live until the end of any show/film.
Josh wrote: "in the fourth season we'll be introduced to a large flying wombat named piggers whom only arya can see. he will be cgi and voiced by david duchovny."Gotta say I laughed out loud on that one! 8)
It's not possible for them to make the show exactly like the books, there are to many plots to many characters and the descriptions of food and scenery, when they take something out of the first season it snow balls through the rest of the seasons. Tho personally i believe that they did a very good job considering and i have read all the books and love the show
Now I'm sad that piggers won't have a bigger part in the show :^C
How can a show based on a great novel-series be TO much like the book...? IMO it can never be to much like the book it's based upon, otherwise, why bother?
Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so therefore sometimes I was wondering whether I should just watch the show instead. I just finished the first book and loved it. I guess what the book has that the show doesn't is the caracter's feelings and inner termoil. I will read every book since I just Love the story.
The first season seemed to follow the book pretty. Season two and the first episode of season three do not follow Clash of Kings or Storm of Swords that well in my opinion. They have completely changed parts.
most of season two was rough, but i thought that the season three opener was brilliant and much closer to the text.
I think we need to be clear that if everything in the books were put in the show, it would be too long to get funding. There are a lot more constraints on a TV show than "is it the book". Yes, there are departures from the manuscript, some of which I don't like, but I can see how they serve the story. Seriously, sit down with one of the books, and attempt to make a storyboard of the entire book in twelve episodes. Which scenes do you choose to show? Which not? What details have to go where, who has to say what lines, etc? It's a much bigger job than it looks like when you're sitting in front of a TV with a copy of the book in your hand. Try that with Dune, for instance.
and of course, they had to go with a shorter season of only 10 episodes just to free up some of the budgetary constraints.
Haven't seen either season, cause sadly we don't get HBO, and haven't bought the boxed sets yet, but have read and loved the books. Hope that there is enough from the books in the shows to keep it true to the books.
Piggers lives!
I borrowed the boxed DVD set of season one from my local library and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was more faithful to the book than many adaptations I've seen. If they had included every detail it would have been a 100 hour season, but I think they chose the best scenes to move the story along without sacrificing too much. I'm on the wait list for season two, and am ready for a binge viewing some weekend soon.I've read all five books, and am just putting number six out of my mind until it's a reality.
Christopher wrote: "Piggers lives!"oh jesus. i just fell out of my chair. hahahahaha
I don't see how you could take too much from the books. My usual problem is that they leave out so much of what I love, such as sub-plots and interesting characters, I think HBO did a perfect job with season 1, I have not seen season 2 yet so I don't know how it goes."All hail, Piggers!"
C.C. wrote: "Agreed. I was hoping they would add in some spaceships, dinosaurs, and bacon-loving libertarians to make it better. Instead they just stuck with the same political intrigue and sex. And there ar..."girglesnort!
Emilie wrote: "Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so therefore sometimes I was wondering whether I shou..."So you're saying you think the books lack detail or emotional depth? How is that the case? They are packed to the brim with details, most of which the show combs through in order to keep it short enough. And I never felt the writing lacked emotional depth. Sure, you don't have actors to convey the motivation and personal qualities, but its all there!
Cersei is a terrible, narcissistic woman, Jaime is an arrogant but somewhat redeemable man, Tyrion is a sympathetic but cunning joker, Ned is a grizzled hero, Robert's a drunk, and so on... And the brutality of the world they live in, the unfairness, the hope, the attempts at redemption, it all comes through in spades. What's missing?
Matthew wrote: "Emilie wrote: "Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so therefore sometimes I was wondering..."^^^^^^^^THIS. I couldn't have said it all better myself ;)
Matthew wrote: "Emilie wrote: "Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so therefore sometimes I was wondering..."You didn't understand at all what I'm trying to say.
Oh well!
Emilie, don't feel badly. Sometimes the written word doesn't convey our thoughts adequately, and sometimes too roughly. Some people prefer books, and others prefer video versions. That makes life interesting. I'm glad you're enjoying the story, however you chose to do so.
Christopher wrote: "Piggers lives!"Brilliant!
I would be disappointed if the TV incorporated less from the books - so far they've only made changes where they would actually work better.
I'm curious about whether they're going to try and cram all of book three into this series though, or split it across 2. I also wonder if they're going to stay true to the books for season 4, given that (view spoiler)
C.C. wrote: "Agreed. I was hoping they would add in some spaceships, dinosaurs, and bacon-loving libertarians to make it better. Instead they just stuck with the same political intrigue and sex. And there ar..."Best post ever!!!
If it had strayed from the book, I can't imagine how bad it could have turned out. The Walking Dead would be a good example."Funny you mention the walking dead. I started reading it first, then watching, found the show was literally word-for-word exactly like the books, and gave up on it.
I haven't seen GoT but have read it. Thinking of checking out the show soon.
I just started reading the second book (I haven't seen season 2 yet) so I hope that the experience will be even better. Watching the TV show first was probably the problem. Then again I would have had a hard time remembering all the characters. Soo many characters and very similar names. Having a face to match the names helped alot.
I like that it stays really close to the source material. On the other end of the spectrum, I don't like when the film adaptation is too different from the books.
Emilie wrote: "I just started reading the second book (I haven't seen season 2 yet) so I hope that the experience will be even better. Watching the TV show first was probably the problem. Then again I would have ..."Emilie, I'm sure you won't be disappointed , both the books and the series are awesome!
Emilie wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Emilie wrote: "Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so therefore sometimes..."No, I didn't agree, that's not the same thing as not understanding. You said you wished the books had more detail and that they didn't capture the inner turmoil of the characters. If anyone is missing something, I'd say its you because I can't imagine how anyone would think the shows, which are truncated compared to the book, did a better job of capturing any of this.
Did people watch the third season opener? Did you notice how they've made more changes, mainly to fit in with what they changed in season 2? Not sure who said it here, but someone pointed out that the variations are growing as the show progresses. I think they were right and getting more so!
Matthew wrote: "Emilie wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Emilie wrote: "Okay so what I meant is, I just wish there was even more details in the book. It seems that lots of the dialogue is taken right out of the book so ther..."I said the books captures the inner turoil and feeling of characters better then the TV show, quite obviously. Somehow you twisted it around.
I think that's just the nature of the respective medium. Unless films use Shakespearean asides, it's difficult to capture what's going on within a character on film with the depth that novels can.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
