Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Silas Vitalia on 05 Oct 2014, 16:31
-
Obligatory GOT thread goes here:
My three takes on the things as follow:
1) Rare example in my opinion where the live action adaptation of the fiction books is much more entertaining and well-written than the source material. The show has its ups and downs but I think has mostly been well done.
2) While I enjoy many parts of the television series I've found the writing to be more and more tiresome with each book (I have read all the books): I often find the books are just way too rapey, and I'm not sure what the word is, juvenile? for my tastes. There's that old SNL-skit about game of thrones actually being written by a horny 13 year old boy with no experience with actual women; like what sort of book would a sex-obsessed thirteen year old whose never been with a real woman write? It reads a lot like GOT in some places :P I think Martin also falls into a sort of poor man's Tolkien territory; Tokien was brilliant in his world building, his language, and his adaptive reuse of mythology... but in my opinion sometimes his pacing (and much more Martin's) often suffered from 'talking about things' rather than 'doing things...' so I tended to have my eyes glaze over when Martin spends 75% of the novel in exposition rather than moving the plot forward.
Sometimes exposition is the point, but perhaps not in a book filled with dragons and wraiths.
3) SPOILER ALERT. YOU ARE WARNED
[spoiler]I really did like the deciphering about John Snow actually being a Targaryen, excellent choice for the plot.
[/spoiler]
How feel you people about the series?
[mod]Updated thread title to warn people off who don't want spoilers. ~Morlag[/mod]
-
:bash:
My take on GoT: I read the book and despised it, thus never checking out the show.
I'll leave this thread now so the fans can enjoy a fun discussion without me being a poop.
-
*Edit* Nevermind, I thought this was still in your thread, Jace. Woops.
-
:bash:
My take on GoT: I read the book and despised it, thus never checking out the show.
I'll leave this thread now so the fans can enjoy a fun discussion without me being a poop.
Don't leave, I'm not a fan of the books either...the show starts out weak IMO but does eventually after season 1 really pick up with writing and casting. Worth you maybe checking out.
-
I find the series past season 1 completely ludicrous at times, and changing the plot for the sake of changing it with over dramatic effects and overall a loss of subtlety jsut to be sure to "entertain" the masses or whatever the goal... Well I understand and agree with them that a tv series needs different pacings and things shown a bit differently (they are not gonna explain every little vassal family like the author spends pages and pages doing in the books for example).
But thing like Robb's wife is unforgivable imo. The plot around that in the books is ten time more powerful and less rubbish, implying that Robb actually married a lesser Lannister vassal and that was actually more or less arranged in tywin little secret letters, like his murder was arranged in the same letters sent to Frey. No over sensationnal bullshit like "OMAGAD THEY KILL THE BABY WITH THE WIFE TOO". Wonder how they are going to fix that in the series btw, since she (Jeyne Westerlin, the book version of Talisa) is not supposed to die at the wedding since she was not even there to begin with... And well, differences like that since season 2 are becoming more and more present and annoying as hell. Not for all, some are probably justified (tv show vs books), but well...
Some characters were also completely butchered in the series, like Margaery the insightful but shy (and somewhat cursed) bride that became some kind of teasing femme fatale... Oh well they are all teasing anyway, it's HBO and boobs sell well. Or jaime, which is thousands times better in the books, especially after losing his hand, becoming completely jaded, cynical, and lolawesome.
I may sound like a fan prick, which I am not actually. I had a difficult time starting the books because nothing happens. It's like the beginning of the lord of the rings, but actually in the lords of the ring the universe and lore building is ten time above so it remains extremely pleasing... Then I got hooked by the plot and the gritty side of everything, the hard fantasy side, etc. But it's written like a tv series. You put 2 or more characters in a scene, make them talk about things, move or not, and then next scene ! It's what I find highly irritating in the books. Compare it to Tolkien and you will see a complete difference, since it's a book that is written like an actual novel. Some people hate the countless pages of lore and world description, but I actually enjoyed it to no end when I read it. The atmosphere, just the atmospjere it gave... It was a book that was taking its time, but still making you enjoy the journey. Got is not much about a journey but just about various characters in different places. It's not bad in itself, but it's written... well, like a series.
I still enjoyed it a lot until book 4, which became boring with nothing happening. Just a few characters brooding over their fate or talking about useless stuff. Book 5 became good again at the end, but the same story tricks are used and reprocessed again and again and seeing a very main character getting killed is not even surprising anymore...
So well, all in all I think both the books and the series are great. The series especially if you have not read the book. I just feel that the books which were quite great have now become quite stale and exhausted, and the series is just following its own story now which doesn't sound quite right when you have read the book.
[spoiler]What makes you say that Snow is Targaryen ? You read that theory on Snow's mother that would actually be Eddard sister with her romantic affair with Rhaegar (the whole shit that started everything btw) ? I fucking love that theory. There are so many subtle hints and clues left everywhere in the books that makes it really awesome to unveil.[/spoiler]
-
I enjoyed the books :)
I've enjoyed the shows, too.
For different reasons, p'raps.
Personally, I liked the way the books were written. It has flaws, as well, mind. For example - I very much enjoy the conceit of each chapter being written from a characters perspective. I enjoy the way the plot unfolds under this form; how you receive a myriad of perspectives, how this kind of defeats the idea of having a main hero, that it becomes ensemble with many important players. It also somewhat, then, confounds predictability, as there become many different players involved. This is helped by a willingness to kill off important characters.*
There's a downside to this though, I think the reader can become inundated with too many characters to try and empathise with at once. While I like the character now (and even more from the show, which also benefits from some excellent actors**) I reacted this way to Davos. Who the fuck is this guy? Don't introduce new people! I want to know about what's happening to x y z!! Arghh!
[spoiler]*Note: I think, spoilers for the people who had already read the books aside, this worked better in the show. People were already predisposed to think of Ned Stark as the main hero figure, I think, both due to his emphasis on 'honour' compared to other more ambiguous characters, and the emphasis on his family setting up his motivations. Also, Sean Bean. So I think that shock factor probably worked better in the show. I've known little old ladies to watch and enjoy it, going "they killed 'im orf!" :)[/spoiler]
**The actors in the show are almost universally fantastic - I think a good actor can bring more to the original source material than was there originally. F.ex in Harry Potter I thought Alan Rickman bought more to the character of Snape, i.e made him a more interesting and complex character, than was originally strictly on the page. I think this happens on GoT as well. Particularly re: Lena Headey as Cersei. The only representation I can't fully get on with is the gormlessness of Jon Snow, which isn't something I felt when reading the book. Which is no personal criticism of Kit Harrington, as I suspect he's received direction to play the character in this way. But I think that ends up making the character less of a character, and more of a caricature. I.e less than was on the page, rather than more.
I think in the last two-partners of the book(s), Martin had perhaps bitten off a bit more than he could chew, in a sense. Which is not to say he didn't handle the material well, just that...well, as he admitted himself, it took a lot longer for him to get through than he thought it would, and necessitated chopping what was going to be one book into two. (iirc) This is also deeply worrying given he's not a young man >.>
That said, I think he knows where he's going. It's just perhaps not easy to get there while trying to do full justice to the individual stories being told as part of the whole.
Tolkien was an influence for Martin, but so were historical fiction novels, like Maurice Drunon's The Iron King. I think he straddles both genres pretty well, in his attempt to bring more of a gritty realistic element to fantasy, i.e low fantasy. (I also really enjoyed Helen Castor's small article comparing some of his female characters to figures from history http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/mar/31/game-of-thrones-women-westeros-lannister-stark-targaryen (http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/mar/31/game-of-thrones-women-westeros-lannister-stark-targaryen))
The books are very rapey, yeah. And also very killy. But y'know, in the society he's depicting, raping and killing are stuff that happens a lot. It's deliberately a brutal setting. I think the show has actually been more gratuitous in that regards, in some senses, though not others. It's a difficult one to unpick fully. While it doesn't harm my own enjoyment of it, there's a definite undercurrent of male-gaze and sex-sells to the show. (Game of Boobs!) This could easily be sorted by the introduction of moar cock into proceedings >.> There's an element of gratuitousness to the violence in the show, i.e the camera focusing on it fully and unflinchingly, which I think is done for shock value. I don't mind this either, really, apart from [spoiler] the red viper scene with I didn't watch all the way through BECAUSE I HEARD IT HAD EXPLODING EYES, AND I DON'T DO EYES. [/spoiler]
It's both simultaneously interesting and disappointing that some of the things that were more subtle in the book become obvious and overt in the show. On the one hand, this is great, because in choosing what things to bring to the forefront and make obvious you're having your own interpretation on the source material. On the other, it does sort of feel that... I know the material is necessarily condensed, but by losing subtlety sometimes it feels like...the tv watching audience is automatically considered more stupid and incapable of understanding nuance than book readers. Which is a bit weird when you're, y'know, both.
On the subject of rapeyness in the books though, I've heard a lot of people condemn them for being misogynistic because of this, which is something I don't really accept. I don't agree that choosing depiction of a society that views and treats women a certain way, is any kind of reflection of the author or the book itself. I wouldn't agree that depiction of misogynistic characters shows that, either. If you look at the book you'll see many strong female characters who are doing what they're doing respectively (often intruding into spaces or powers considered primarily masculine) despite the limitations placed on them externally by the society in which they live. They're outliers in that society (i.e the exception rather than the rule), but they are who the book chooses to focus on as characters. To such an extent (the list of female characters who do this is pretty long, and the amount of conversations had about it fairly extensive) that I'd go as far as to say it's a central theme or preoccupation.
-
Oh, also, I very much loved depictions of Davos Seaworth, Stannis Baratheon, Tywin Lannister, The Red Viper and Jaqen H'ghar in the show. The actors gave those characters more force of personality and interest than I found in the book.
-
Some characters were also completely butchered in the series, like Margaery the insightful but shy (and somewhat cursed) bride that became some kind of teasing femme fatale... Oh well they are all teasing anyway, it's HBO and boobs sell well.
that was your interpretation of Margaery from the books? Insightful but shy cursed bride?
because that's one of the examples I was thinking of, of something covert and subtle in the book becoming overt and obvious in the shows, along with Renly's and Loras' relationship (hinted at through subtext, but not made explicit iirc)
I saw Margaery as a very cunning player of the game, coached by her grandmother. Not so different from the calculated and ambitious character overtly portrayed in the show. Her 'shyness' is persona and why she is a far better game player than Cersei; because she is playing from within the system. The system expects her to be virtuous, dutiful and chaste. So that is what she presents. She is excellent at PR.
Cersei, on the other hand, has been too frustrated with the system for too long not to hide her disdain. She grows careless and shows rather than hides her pursuit of power, doesn't bother to represent herself as virtuous, dutiful or chaste. Scorns the Church and the poor. (Scorns pretty much everyone by a certain point).
[spoiler]Personally, I thought the whole thing in the books re: the whole issue with the power of the Church and the respective scandals surrounding Cersei and Margaery and, what literally becomes a kind of ideological battle over Cersei and Margaery's cunts, to be illustrative of the different ways these respective powerful women play the game.[/spoiler]
And Margaery is a lot better at it.
(Courting the poor and the Church earlier with donations probably didn't hurt any).
Edit: Uh, though not trying to suggest interpreting Margaery in this way from the books isn't valid, or that you are somehow stupid or missing the nuance if you don't see her the same why I do. There's definitely room for both interpretations from the book, imo. Just arguing why I don't see her book representation in that light.
-
I'm in agreement with all of that.
Also, it is true Silas that in the books especially, Martin seems to be fantazising a lot on some female characters. It almost has a voyeur aspect to it. Especially regarding Daenerys, that as a narrator he started to call Danny. Lolwut, Danny. As the narrator.
And obviously he has a fetish for this one.
-
Oh, also, I very much loved depictions of Davos Seaworth, Stannis Baratheon, Tywin Lannister, The Red Viper and Jaqen H'ghar in the show. The actors gave those characters more force of personality and interest than I found in the book.
But all of Stannis' good scenes are missing from the show. :( I want to see the good Stannis traits but they keep just portraying him as a straight villain.
Tywin was definitely amazing though.
-
Will give longer response later (werkin'):
But I positively love the show casting for Stannis. Just completely makes it for me, the utter giving 0 fucks of the guy for pomp and diplomacy, just very well cast.
-
Oh yes I love the casting. He plays the role amazingly. I <3 Stannis.
The issue is, I read about how he is portrayed in the books, and I'm like, "Omg, this guy is so cool! Where is this stuff in the show!'.
The show has done a great job portraying Stannis' darker aspects, but his noble aspects have, so far, only been informed traits as told by Davos, never really seen. I'd like to start seeing just why Davos is so loyal to him, just why this is the true king of Westeros. Show don't tell and all that.
-
Ack need to not get trapped into thread this am but:
I always disagree with the argument about "the writer is just depicting a brutal time so that explains why the book is so x" in this case constantly rapey and whatever. It's a world of fiction 100% under the writer's control. One can easily have an adventure in an awful world without a need to revel in the awfulness.
The writer is making a choice what he spends pages on, what they depict, and how they describe those things.
A WWII adventure novel could spend 400 pages depicting in excruciating detail a few thousand people getting lead into the gas chambers and murdered, over and over, for the entire length of the book.
But that wouldn't be a story that people want to read. There's a way to reference a world where bad things happen and things are quite awful without shoving it in the reader's face over and over. There's a difference between being gratuitous and setting a tone.
SEE? THIS WORLD IS BRUTAL AND WE WILL NOW REFERENCE THE RAPING. SEE HOW BRUTAL WE ARE? WE WILL NOW THREATEN THE RAPING (for the 6,000th time).
I have a similar issue with some of Margret Atwood's books, in the same way 95% of the men in her novels all fit a very specific, terrible stereotype of sort of monstrous murdering rapist assholes.
In the entire 'oryx and crake' series of three books there's like 3 men who aren't complete shits.
EDIT:
I'd point to something like Cormac McArthy's "The Road" (novel, not the shit movie), who can illicit more actual dread and fear and panic in the reader merely hinting at the awful things going on that having to constantly show any of them.
-
@Silas Vitalia
Ok, but commenting on a setting is not the same as commenting on the author or the themes of the book in general.
Yes, it's a choice. And yes, it's fiction. He could've decided to have written an entirely different book - as many have suggested, he could've written utopian fiction instead. But it wasn't what he wanted to write, and that doesn't, by default, make him a misogynist. There's no evidence that he condones the behaviours of the characters in his book from what I can see - other than he chose to write them.
Again, yes, his inspirations come from fantasy. But also, many of his inspirations come from history. One tends to be more brutal than the other. Although, granted, our perceptions of historical events are coloured by mythologising them.
(But seriously, there's some nasty brutal shit there. The red wedding came from a similar thing that happened in Scotland iirc. And there's there's chock-full of horrendous tortures and barbarities we've inflicted on eachother. Truth is stranger than fiction, etc)
Yes, foregrounding it in this brutal, shitty, fictitious world is a deliberate choice. And yes, choosing to emphasise that is a deliberate choice. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.
But what I'm arguing is, that choice of setting doesn't make the books or the intention to write them inherently misogynistic. And, in fact, the women in the book, tended to have to overcome greater adversity (i.e making them more badass) because of the regressive, violent and corrupt world they are placed in.
For example. Rape is a way of punishing women; to keep them in line, to show them they are weaker (and it doesn't just happen to women, but more regularly). It's both physical and emotion domination. Because women are weaker, they need men to protect them - to prevent bad things happening to them (is a narrative of the setting, which is not necessarily the narrative of the book)
So when Brienne usurps a combative masculine role (which, frankly, due to her dimensions doesn't seem unbelievable), she is told she deserves to get raped, because she's transgressing from the role that automatically would get her protection (i.e needing a man). That doesn't stop her doing what she's doing at all. And it shouldn't. But it takes a lot of chutzpah to go against what your society is telling you is right and natural.
(He could be De Sade if he wanted it to be, but I didn't really get the sense there was anything particularly masturbatory in Martin's depictions of abuse...less so than the tv show tbh, where lingering camera gazes can change the tone somewhat).
I have a similar issue with some of Margret Atwood's books, in the same way 95% of the men in her novels all fit a very specific, terrible stereotype of sort of monstrous murdering rapist assholes.
In the entire 'oryx and crake' series of three books there's like 3 men who aren't complete shits.
Well, in 'oryx and crake' I saw it more as what would happen if the rules of society broke down. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that without any penalties whatsoever to inhibit it, there would be a lot more monstrous murdering rapist assholes than there currently are.
Which is perhaps more pessimism than misandry.
-
Okay now, I'll let the eyes in the closet and you'll let De Sade away. Deal ? :lol:
Oh yes I love the casting. He plays the role amazingly. I <3 Stannis.
The issue is, I read about how he is portrayed in the books, and I'm like, "Omg, this guy is so cool! Where is this stuff in the show!'.
The show has done a great job portraying Stannis' darker aspects, but his noble aspects have, so far, only been informed traits as told by Davos, never really seen. I'd like to start seeing just why Davos is so loyal to him, just why this is the true king of Westeros. Show don't tell and all that.
Yes I got the same feeling for Stannis. I also wondered why they felt the need to make him jump on Melisandre teasing him. He doesn't do it in the books right ? I don't remember well but he is too full of himself and righteous for it to happen...
Anyway, even if I recall badly for that, and even if Stannis' actor is awesome, Stannis portrayal is not loyal to the source material, or not the best. We even saw him crying like a baby. I don't remember that in the books.
Ack need to not get trapped into thread this am but:
I always disagree with the argument about "the writer is just depicting a brutal time so that explains why the book is so x" in this case constantly rapey and whatever. It's a world of fiction 100% under the writer's control. One can easily have an adventure in an awful world without a need to revel in the awfulness.
The writer is making a choice what he spends pages on, what they depict, and how they describe those things.
A WWII adventure novel could spend 400 pages depicting in excruciating detail a few thousand people getting lead into the gas chambers and murdered, over and over, for the entire length of the book.
But that wouldn't be a story that people want to read. There's a way to reference a world where bad things happen and things are quite awful without shoving it in the reader's face over and over. There's a difference between being gratuitous and setting a tone.
SEE? THIS WORLD IS BRUTAL AND WE WILL NOW REFERENCE THE RAPING. SEE HOW BRUTAL WE ARE? WE WILL NOW THREATEN THE RAPING (for the 6,000th time).
I have a similar issue with some of Margret Atwood's books, in the same way 95% of the men in her novels all fit a very specific, terrible stereotype of sort of monstrous murdering rapist assholes.
In the entire 'oryx and crake' series of three books there's like 3 men who aren't complete shits.
EDIT:
I'd point to something like Cormac McArthy's "The Road" (novel, not the shit movie), who can illicit more actual dread and fear and panic in the reader merely hinting at the awful things going on that having to constantly show any of them.
Well yes I can agree that Martin's style is certainly not the most subtle about things. I speaks bluntly, to say the least. But it doesn't spends pages describing all those crass things. It just says it, most of the time, without veiling it, insisting on it, but he says it and that's it. I still prefer when things are done with subtlety, since it often works even better actually because it leaves all the imagination to the reader while still revealing enough so that there is no doubt on what is happening.
It's not like in the show where they enjoy making those scenes last infinitely for the sake of shoving it in your face to be sure you understood it's drama and it's gross and so it's sensational. It's a brothel ? Let's me shove you some couples of asses and cocks in your face. Like it ? Seen them ? Not enough I guess, let me show you again, this time with twice the amount ! It's a murder party in a marriage ? Ok, let the baddies murder them all, and take the time to show how they all die in excruciating details. AND DO NOT FORGET TO SHOW THE BELLY WITH THE BABY ! NO ! BRING BACK THE CAMERA ON THE BABY ! LONGER !
Duh
-
Let's me shove you some couples of asses and cocks in your face. Like it ? Seen them ? Not enough I guess, let me show you again, this time with twice the amount !
I think they could do with dialling the cocks up a bit, frankly >.>
-
I believe the term is (s)exposition
-
What was with that lich king looking motherfucker though?
-
I'm not 100% up on the lore, but basically:
The show people worked out the 'end' with Martin in advance, so they are showing stuff not in the books yet.
HBO 'breast' quota needs nearly an entire other thread.
I'm hetero male but yea the show is terribly frightened to show any penises, it's hilarious how scared they are.
-
Pretty sure there was Hodor penis. In fact, I hear he even got a prosthetic to make it bigger.
-
The wine merchant who tries to poison Danny is made to run naked behind the Dothraki horses. That's the only penis I remember >_>
-
There are actually a few here and there, but they remain rather discreet and not exposed very long right in the middle of the screen. You see some in the brothel with Oberyn Martel and all the manstitutes for example. But not only here, in a lot of nude scenes.
Most of the time it's just a glimpse, like if they were afraid to show them indeed.
Personally I would be fine with that for both sexes, no need for more, really.
I'm not 100% up on the lore, but basically:
The show people worked out the 'end' with Martin in advance, so they are showing stuff not in the books yet.
They basically showed in that episode with the 'King of the Others' (or the lich king if you will) something that the readers of the books have never seen themselves in the books. It's the first time the show spoiled the book readers, which is kind of ironic in itself. Maybe they took pleasure in doing so considering how smug book readers tend to be.
But it really annoyed me though. It revealed two new things : that the Others have a king or some kind of leader, and how they reproduce. Well, more of a confirmation actually since we supposed it was that way with all the babies left in the night but... Still.
It's also annoying as usual because of the way it's done. Firstly, the Others are really crappy in terms of art design (well, it's my opinion but they suck hard). Secondly, they show too much of them. In the books you spend the 3 first books and you basically never see one of them, but you know they are there. You just know it until Sam is eventually attacked by one and kills it, and that happens so fast that you are still left wondering wtf happened. It's what makes those creatures so powerful in that storytelling : you never see them, but you hear of them a lot, and you know they are there, sometimes just a few meters away in the dark (or you suppose so). They are also never described, and barely when Sam meets one. It's all the mystery around that makes them scary. In the show they blatantly show them all because HEY LOOK HOW WE ARE PROUD OF OUR CRAPPY CGI EFFECTS.
[spoiler]They also did a blunder when they wrote on the synopsis of the episode in question that the lich king pictured here was titled "The Night King". Fans immediately remember the story we are told in the book about the Night King, which is a myth about the 13th lord commandant of the night watch that turned pretty bad, fearing nothing as he said and ventured past the wall to follow a white skinned woman out of love, and whom he took as his queen back to the wall, but by doing so sold his soul to her and ruled during 13 years over the watch, using the watchers as his puppets in some kind of eternal night. Until the Starks of Winterfell allied with the King beyond the wall Joramund came to save the day, and discover that the Night King sacrificed many people to the Others. Many names are said to be the House of the Night King, but according to the old nanny of Bran, it was a Stark.
Also, if you remember correctly, the Night Watch has had hundred of lord commandants until now. I don't remember the exact number and which one was Jeor Mormont and which one is Jon Snow, but that's by the hundreds. Which means that the Night King is old as fuck and probably one of the main vilains. So there is that too as a huge potential spoiler.[/spoiler]
-
:bash:
My take on GoT: I read the book and despised it, thus never checking out the show.
I'll leave this thread now so the fans can enjoy a fun discussion without me being a poop.
My response:
(http://i.imgur.com/xR8CVpm.gif)
-
I was annoyed when I first heard Martin was doing a series. Dude takes forever to write a book, plus he wants to add a series adaptation on it? I thought the idea that a series would portray the dense world effectively was fairly laughable. I was thinking of Dune mostly, a series I cherished, and how much of a dumpster fire it always turned out to be to translate that into a movie or series.
I was wrong. Its fantastic.
If you would have told me 15yrs ago when i started reading the series that my former fraternity brothers would dress up as Khal Drogo I would have laughed in your face.
Also i pretty much give a +1 to everything Kala said. Well written.