The Sword and Laser discussion
About to start Game of Thrones
date
newest »
newest »
I just read the books and have so far ignored the show. I absolutely loved the books and read them one after the other and almost cried when I didn't have anymore to read. I say jump into the books and save the show for later.
Mod
There are many details left out of the show and knowing them adds to the enjoyment.
By all means enjoy both.
I'm excited because I've managed to blind myself from any spoilers so I know nothing about this series, which makes it all the more intriguing.
I'm actually a little jealous. I wish I could forget all I've read and experience it all again.
I have this same predicament.I see all these great references to Tyrion in pop culture, but I don't get it. I know it's from the TV show, but in my experience, you should always read / watch the source material before whatever comes after, because that'll be truer to the original content.
I've already finish with the first book, and I'm in the middle of the second, and I know it will probably take months to finish the whole series, but I kinda wanna do this right. Complete the books, then the show. With all this hub bub about this series, you know it's gotta be good.
I read the first book before Season One came out and it helped a whole lot with knowing the names starting right off (which was a stumbling block for some who had no exposure before the season started).Before the Season ended I had read the next two books, which was fortunate, considering there's a slight timing change where something occurs in Season One that really happened in book two or three.
tbh I would watch the show and not bother with the books, it works better as a show than as a book but that is just me :)
I agree. Watch the show first. You certainly won't lose anything by it (unlike some adaptations that differ wildly, GoT is pretty darn close to the source material). Then read the books if you really want to.
I, generally, follow the rule "book first then movie/series interpretation". This way, only movie can be disappointing, books rarely are.Happy reading! (although I found it hard to get back to the series, too much political schemes for my taste).
Igor wrote: "I, generally, follow the rule "book first then movie/series interpretation". This way, only movie can be disappointing, books rarely are.Happy reading! (although I found it hard to get back to th..."
I used to, but I found I was much less likely to be disappointed by the interpretation of a book if I hadn't read it beforehand. By watching the show/film/etc first, it's easier to take each on its own merits. :) Of course you then end up carrying your conceptions from the film into the book, but that's another kettle of eels...
Watch the show first, then read the books.Here is my logic: If you read the books, and then watch the show, you are more likely to be disappointed by things left out of the show, or things that didn't happen the way you expected them to. If you watch the show first, then read the books, then the depth of the books will feel like bonus materiel.
Also, those are big books. You'll get the story faster watching the show, and in more depth reading the books.
Definitely do both, though. Don't choose one or the other.
Doc
I agree with watching the show first! I am a huge fan of the HBO series and I am anxiosly awaiting the next season. Although I have only read bk one twice, I find that the show helped me to keep better track of the characters and houses as I went along. I will be starting bk 2 soon, and hoping to start bk 3 by the time next season rolls around.
I would recommend reading the books first - they are much more detailed and, even though I'm a big fan of the show, I do not think the show do all the events justice...
Tim A wrote: "Of course you then end up carrying your conceptions from the film into the book, but that's another kettle of eels..."And exactly the reason why I'm trying to avoid movies before books. No actor can replace e.g. Vin (Mistborn) as the one appeared in my mind! :-D
Igor wrote: "Tim A wrote: "Of course you then end up carrying your conceptions from the film into the book, but that's another kettle of eels..."And exactly the reason why I'm trying to avoid movies before bo..."
And on the other hand, Peter Dinklage *is* Tyrion, and
Tim A wrote: "Igor wrote: "Tim A wrote: "Of course you then end up carrying your conceptions from the film into the book, but that's another kettle of eels..."And exactly the reason why I'm trying to avoid mov..."
I totally agree with you Tim! I think the cast of characters is phenominal. I don't think there is anyone else I could see to play the part of Tyrion or Osha for that matter. =)
I think both the books and the series have their own special qualities. I am just happy to enjoy both of them!
They both are phenomenal but I'm in the camp of reading the books first. I personally watched season 1, read all the books and then watched season 2. I found that reading the first book was a lot slower than the other ones as the show had done such a great job adapting it. There were still insights I gained from the book that the show didn't offer but I would have much prefered reading it first
In my experience, when a novel got adapted, watching the adaptation first, then reading the source material, does not diminish the enjoyement you will get from the literature. But when you read first and watch later, it always kill the enjoymenet you 'll get out of the movie or series. Because it will never ever ever be as good as the source novel. So Ialways watch the adaptartion first.But of course, this rule only applies for the great adaptations from great novels, comic books, or stories. If it is a horrible Hollywood movie that butchered and raped the source material(like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Avatar The Last Airbender), avoid watching it at all costs. Because it literally poisons all the fiction for you.
Igor wrote: "I, generally, follow the rule "book first then movie/series interpretation". This way, only movie can be disappointing, books rarely are."
There's a huge difference between film adaptions and a book being adapted into a TV series. In my opinion a feature film is equivalent to a short story or maybe a novella.
So while I think 9-10 hours is enough time to tell the story of a normal sized book, it doesn't surprise me that GoT has to cut plot from the huge books its based on, lol. But still 10 hours... much longer than 2!
TV shows with big story arcs if by far my favorite visual medium. It just has so much more time to tell a story. Why I watched animes for years. And now everyone uses the Internet or has digital recorders so American TV has started having more and more continuity and less creature-of-the-week, it's great, IMO. :)
I sort of did both in a way. I watched the first season, then read the first book and continued on so now I'm reading ahead of the show. Personally I always try to read books first because I find it difficult to read a book if I've seen the show/film as I know what's going to happen.
However, in this case I found I still really enjoyed the book after seeing the show as there was so much more info in the book to flesh out the story. I am going to keen reading first then watching, because I do enjoy reading things fresh, but I think in this case it all depends on your personal choice. I think you'll enjoy it either way.
Well, I suppose the consensus of this whole thread is leading to is: if you like books more, read it first. if you like watching more, watch it first. All this really boils down to is what type of person you are. Since this is a forum dedicated to books, most people here will tell you to read it first. If this were, say, on a TV / Movie forum, then it may be reversed.But do keep in mind, these will both be radically different perspectives. Take for instance, Lord of the Rings. The movies make the entire scenario, from Frodo leaving the Shire, to when he cast the ring into the fires of Mordor, seem like weeks, but in the books, it takes 17 years.
it's all about perspectives.
Hai wrote: "Well, I suppose the consensus of this whole thread is leading to is: if you like books more, read it first. if you like watching more, watch it first. All this really boils down to is what type of person you are."After all suggestions and opinions all come to this and I guess we all agree :-)
Hai wrote: "Frodo leaving the Shire, to when he cast the ring into the fires of Mordor, seem like weeks, but in the books, it takes 17 years."the actual trip took like 5 months, but the books spanned 17 years.
I'd say read the books, season 1 of the is very true to the 1st book but season 2 there are quite a few difference which for me is too much, and in a couple of cases fundermentally changes the charaters progression. Also Stains' measter is all wrong in the series and is fleshed out in the book so much more, in the TV show you don't see any of his motervations like you read in the book. I've read books 1 - 4 and I've got book 5 ready to read, but I'm saving it for another week when I'm on holiday and I can really get time to get into it. I've seen all of season 1 but I stopped watching season 2 on TV after 5 episodes as too much has changed like I mentioned before and I don't think I'll watch anymore of it.
I watched the first season, fell in love with it, couldn't wait for the second season, and started reading (starting with book one). It worked out well for me! Now I'm finishing book five and the second season was a nice refresher. So much is going on that it's nice to go over the material again.
Tyler wrote: "So I am (excitedly) about to read Game of Thrones for the first time. I've had some folks tell me I should watch the show while reading the book, while others say read the book first and then watch..."You will have a hard time to read "Game of Thrones" because that's not what the book series is titled.
I watched the first season of the show, then read the first two books, then watched the 2nd season. I'm glad I saw the show first, because I didn't have the problem of the characters not looking like I imagined them to. I think I enjoyed the 2nd season more having read the book though. I understood more about the characters and their motivations. Just started reading book 3.
Read the book first. It inspired the show, so it must be good :)P.S.
I read it when it first came out in 1997 so I had no option :)
Kp wrote: "Hai wrote: "Frodo leaving the Shire, to when he cast the ring into the fires of Mordor, seem like weeks, but in the books, it takes 17 years."the actual trip took like 5 months, but the books spanned 17 years. "
I remember being jarred by that when first watching the Fellowship movie. Bilbo vanishes from his birthday and Gandalf gives Frodo the ring. In the books, he comes and goes for almost two decades before telling Frodo he has to take the ring to Rivendell. But in the film, it feels like Gandalf gave Frodo the ring, walked down the street to the library, looked up one book, and came back later that night telling Frodo to hit the road.
What say ye?
(or should I just ignore the show and enjoy the wonderfulness that the book will bring?)