|
Game of Thrones on HBO
With George R.R. Martin's announcement (as seen in the original book thread) that the pilot has been approved for filming by HBO, let's start this off with some rampant speculation about good casting. I'm sure they'll actually go with mostly unknowns; the cast will be too large to have more than 1 or 2 known actors. But, this is FOFC, we make stuff up all the time.
EDIT: Some key characters in A Game of Thrones:
Shew. I'll stop there. Like I said, way too many characters to have big names. :) |
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to speculate on cast. The effects, costumes, sets, etc. will be straining the budget something fierce. If "Rome" had budget problems, this series' budget could be off the charts.
I guess they could use CGI a ton, but, unlike, "Rome", most of which took place in, well, Rome, there are just so many different locations that are so varied in look and feel. You have Winterfell, Kings Landing, the Wall, all that stuff out East with Dany and those are just the "main" locations in the books. (Beyond that is Dorne, Harenhal, The Aerie, Riverrun, The Twins, etc, etc.). It would be sweet to see those locations come to life, but I don't know how they will do it well and in a cost-effective manner. HBO always seems to do a decent job of getting relatively unknown, yet extremely talented, actors for its shows. I really wasn't familiar with much of anyone (other than a few exceptions) who starred in "The Wire", "Rome", or "Deadwood" and they all had very solid casts. I would imagine that this series would be cast in a similar vein. The only two "big name" actors I can think of off the top of my head that would be perfect would be Liam Neeson for Ned Stark (there's really no one of note who'd fit better for that role) and Peter Dinklage as Tyrion. I always pictured Bryden Tully looking almost exactly like Sam Elliot, but he's a pretty minor character and I certainly wouldn't expect that casting. He's just one of the few characters in the books I had always matched up with an actor. One problem they will encounter will be the fact that a lot of the main characters in these books are children. Children are notoriously hard to cast not only because there are so few good child actors, but because they age between seasons (see, e.g., Walt from "Lost"). I think they will just have to bite the bullet and make all of the kids a bit older and cast actors who appear younger than they are. |
That's the benefit of being on FOFC, we don't have a budget. ;)
|
They have put enough money into everything else, so I think they'll do a good job. I don't think we'll recognize any of the actors, though.
|
Quote:
The only way I will be disappointed is if they manage to make the series, it's really done well and then they end up having to cancel it due to money problems. Then I will be disappointed. If they make it and it turns out to be very good, then so be it. It's not like a poor series is in any way going to tarnish the awesomness that is the series. That said, I think it's pretty much impossible to translate these books into a successful series. I don't think it is so much a matter of money, though that will be play a big role (i.e., limited sets and the absence of most, if not all, of the battle scenes, many of which are super cool), but rather the books rely on too much subtly to really come across well on TV. I love the complexity of the books, the cast of thousands, etc. You're really asking a lot of your audience to keep track of everything. What they will inevitibly end up doing is significantly shrinking down the cast of characters, combining multiple characters into one and cutting out certain character all together, and streamlining the plots. While one could easily argue Martin's plots could use some streamlining, there are just so many great moments and characters that will be necessarily lost that it may really take away some of what makes the series so enjoyable. |
Quote:
I know there are a lot rabid fans out there. I probably love this series more than most. I've read/listened to all four books at least three times. Given how little I have left to listen to of "Feast", and the amount of leaves in my yard, I will probably be starting up "A Game of Thrones" yet again on iPod this weekend. That said, any reasonable person has to accept that you can fit everything that takes place in a 700 page book in 12 episodes (or fewer). Some things are going to have to be cut, some characters are going to have to be written out and some things are going to be changed. That's a given. You just have to have faith that they make the right calls. For example, look at the LOTR movies. If you include all the director's cuts, those films total around 8-9 hours in length. I don't know how many pages the entire trilogy is, but I doubt it's too much longer than 700 pages. Still, they had to cut scenes out, combine characters, write some out, make some dramatic changes. I thought almost everything they did worked (and, in fact, vastly improved on the original source). I've watched the "making of" DVDs where they explain what they did and why and it all made perfect sense. Similar choices will have to be made in this series and they will be a lot more significant than what was done for LOTR. You just hope that they make the right choices and it all makes sense. (I have similar concerns about the upcoming "Watchmen" movie. Though I remain hopeful.) One interesting wrinkle in all of this is that the series isn't done yet. Granted the books and TV series will be two completely different animals, but I wonder how much, if any, one could read into decisions made regarding the TV series. For example, if they decide to go without Brynden Tully or Sandor Clegane or whoever, does that mean that these characters are "disposable" enough that they will not really play a significant role in the upcoming books? I think that would be reading way too much into things, but it's still something to consider. |
Tyrion Lannister: the dude from Willow.
|
I don't think GRRM will write the rest of the books based in any way upon the choices that are made for the TV series. *shrug*
|
Quote:
Val Kilmer? Nah, I don't see it. :D |
dude i'm way stoked for this series. wayyyyyyyyyyy stoked
|
Quote:
I was thinking more in the opposite direction. The choices that are made for the TV series could reflect or could give some indication what type of role, if any, certain characters will, or will not, play in the "end game" of the books. Like I said, I think that would be reading way too much into things, but it's still something to consider. |
I am guessing they will definitely age the Stark children. Martin already said he wished he had started with them a little older. I think they'll have a hard time putting ten year olds in the situations they are put in the books.
|
Quote:
Agreed. I think that's one of the problems Martin is struggling with at the moment. Given he's scrapped his idea for a 5 year gap between books 3 and 4, he now has a bunch of characters who, presumably, will play a pretty major role in the series but are all pretty young and sort of a ways off from becoming capable. |
I am wondering if George Martin will have finished the series of books beofre the tv series gets to the end as slow as he writes his books in the series.
|
Quote:
I always just assumed they had a different time scale in the books, so someone who was written as a 10 year old was the equivalent of a 16 year old in our world. |
Did anyone see that "Carcetti" from "The Wire" has been cast as Littlefinger?
|
Less than a week til it premiers. I saw that 720,000 people tuned in to watch the preview last week, hopefully that is a good sign
|
Quote:
HBO looks to be doing well financially, which bodes well for the series lasting the whole seven books and forcing Martin to actually write the books |
Nifty Cheat Sheet from the Times on teh characters
The Cheat Sheet: 'Game of Thrones' - latimes.com First time I saw Tywin's character, I think he looks the part well |
I literally cannot wait for this damn show to premiere. Like...cannot wait.
I'm just glad that my week this week looks to be relatively "standard" with nothing unusual hopefully cropping up so that this weekend can get here sooner!! |
<----doesn't have HBO. :(
|
Quote:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo. Friends with HBO? Barring that you know they'll get it out on BluRay and you can watch it then...assuming you're scrupulous and don't pirate it. |
Quote:
Sign up for three months? |
Quote:
That's what I've done, effective today. Can't emphasize enough how excited I am for this |
I ordered HBO this weekend for this exact reason.
|
And I bumped this thread over the otehr one since this was more specific to the tv show rather than the book series. Just need a thread title change :)
|
Quote:
We had HBO for a long time here, and almost never watched it, add that to financial difficulties, and we can't really justify the cost just for one show. So I'm mostly content to wait for the DVD to come out (with someone hopefully offering it a better price than the initial cost) |
I considered getting HBO just for this, but their pricing is absurd. I'm not paying $45 for one tv show.
|
Quote:
+1 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
$15/month, 3 months... $45... |
Netflix/someone will have it in a few months when they release it on DVD. I've had to wait a decade for half a book, I can wait half a year to watch the tv series.
|
Quote:
This |
Quote:
Yeah, just annoying that it will be DVD rather than streaming. |
Quote:
I don't get that at all. I think it looks fantastic. Much, much more like the quality of the LOTR movies than Xena. |
I saw this preview in the Philly paper:
Quote:
|
Quote:
That was my thought as well. |
Cool note:
Quote:
Game of Thrones: 10 Secrets About HBO's Adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin - The Daily Beast |
Quote:
While I agree with the premise, I dismiss it as Martin wanting more time to write his books |
The New York Times Review of this series is causing a bit of a sitr.
The review is pretty horrible written and borderline offensive. FYI, TK, as a woman, who is alive, you shouldn't be watching this or reading this series. ‘Game of Thrones’ Begins Sunday on HBO - Review - NYTimes.com Here is an excerpt: "Like “The Tudors” and “The Borgias” on Showtime and the “Spartacus” series on Starz, “Game of Thrones,” is a costume-drama sexual hopscotch, even if it is more sophisticated than its predecessors. It says something about current American attitudes toward sex that with the exception of the lurid and awful “Californication,” nearly all eroticism on television is past tense. The imagined historical universe of “Game of Thrones” gives license for unhindered bed-jumping — here sibling intimacy is hardly confined to emotional exchange. The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half." |
FWIW, it appears the writer may have been a woman herself and is writing her impression (is Ginia a woman's name?)
|
Quote:
What a crappy review from a hater. Every other review I've read has been overwhelmingly positive. The NYT is the last bastion of a dying institution (print newspaper) anyways. |
|
Quote:
Yes, it is a woman. I am not sure what difference that makes when she's making claims about "no woman alive would" watch or read. As a man, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable stating what "no man alive would" or would not do. |
Quote:
The review on Slate is actually quite a bit worse. The guy admits that he hates fantasy and decides to take the series to task because of it. Here is the one from Slate and excerpt: http://www.slate.com/id/2291119/ Thus does the reviewer feel daunted to face an old nemesis at a late hour. You see, Game of Thrones—adapted by David Benioff and Dan Weiss from a series of novels by George R.R. Martin—is quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap. That's not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type. The reviewer happens to have an anti-weakness for that general sensibility and those armor-clad generic trappings. Hey, his loss, he knows, but, for instance, he cannot trust his taste to tell him if the Harry Potter books are written well. An undergraduate attempt to learn to read Middle English led to naps in multiple Chaucer seminars. He recalls the emotional pain he suffered one lunch period back in the Reagan Era—the pain of wasting the time experimenting with icosahedral dice. Once, bowing to peer pressure, he lyingly implied that he thought Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings to be in the same league as Lawrence of Arabia, when the honest answer was, "I don't care." Many, many years ago, before escaping the provinces, he was horribly unchivalrous in canceling a date at the last minute. Word was going around that the lady in question made like a serving wench at many a Renaissance Festival, and he called off the plans for their Olive Garden rendezvous. Sorry. Since it hasn't been aired yet, I haven't seen this. It could be bad. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who gives the show a fair, honest review and actually critiques it legitimately. I have read some positive reviews and some less so, all of which were honest and well written. |
Writing a critical review about a show in genre that you admit (in the review!) that you're biased against is just stupid. I give that no weight at all, and I would presume any reader with two braincells to rub together would do the same.
As far as the woman above re: the sex, see Sepinwall's take on the sex: Quote:
|
|
I've read a few bad reviews for the show, and they all are of the "I hate fantasy, therefore, I hate this" variety. I have yet to see a review from someone who likes fantasy and/or read and like the books that was negative.
|
Quote:
While I do not doubt there are women in this world who read books like Ms. Moore's, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up at her book club and specifically requested to read "Birds of America". |
Quote:
But if I were a dead woman, it'd be OK. :D ;) Yeah, that review is nuts. Funny, I've read the books and never thought of them as a vague global warming horror story. And nor do I think keeping track of the principals requires much skill. And while I've read The Hobbit and AGoT, I've never read the latest Lorrie Moore. Bad writing, bad pesudo-journalism, giving a bad name to women. /tk |
Anyone catch "Chuck" on Monday? His opening line: "Eddard, don't give your children direwolves. That's crazy!"
|
Quote:
Must have missed the opening line...that's awesome though!! |
Quote:
Wow, really? lol...that's great. What was the context? |
Quote:
He was reading a book (apparently the first one, they don't really show) and just blurts out the comment to Sarah. |
T-minus 7hrs 56mins
|
2hrs 19mins till the 15 minute pre-show (whatever that will include)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CANNOT WAIT!!!!!!!! |
I have heard mention of "A Song of Ice and Fire" on this board before but assumed it wasn't for me. However on Twitter this morning I noticed A Game of Thrones as a trending topic and decided to investigate it. I stumbled upon a preview of the show on HBO.com and was immediately drawn to the show.
Wikipedia was then my next destination where I did some background on the show in order to get familiar. I am eager to watch this show as HBO has always had my respect with regard to their series. With all of that being said you can count me in as one who is excited and will be following faithfully. I will give my thoughts on the first episode Monday or Tuesday depending on work. Noop |
Cool - the show is attracting non-core fans!!
|
13:30...
|
3:30!!!!
|
GAME ON!!!!
|
Poor Jon Arryn
|
Viserys is spot on
|
Quote:
Seriously. |
Wondering what the hook at the end of the first episode is going to be to entice people to tune in next week...
|
Sean Bean has done great in making me forget that he was Boromir. Damn damn good.
|
Really? They're going to shoehorn this into the last 4 minutes of the first episode? Wowsers. Makes sense, but I didn't think they'd get to it...
|
Quote:
I thought that was well done, to end it like that. |
Oh I thought it was well done too, and it makes sense in terms of like, ending a very exposition-heavy episode with some action and a "WOW" to get people to tune in next week...I was just looking at the time and figuring there was no way they were going to get to it -- very impressed with the script that they managed to get to it and also introduce so many of the characters in that period of time.
|
That was my first "hook" for the book, so I assumed they'd end it with that this week. Good show.
|
Quote:
Actually, just like the book, that's a very good hook. You're set up in the book (and in the show) to like Bran; he's a very likeable character. An ending like this is the first clue for those not familiar with Martin's novels of his calling card--his seeming willingness to kill off, maim, hurt or change just about any character in his story, regardless of importance to the reader's feelings. |
Quote:
Dude - you're misunderstanding me. I agree that it's a great hook. I was just saying that I was surprised that they managed to fit it in the first episode is all. Seemed like time was flying by. That's all. |
Quote:
Oh, no, I don't misunderstand you. I was just making another statement on top of yours. Not meant to contradict. |
It's 10 episodes, I believe, too--even with as relatively short as AGOT is, they're going to need to squeeze in a lot each episode.
BTW, I was surprised (unless I missed it) that Rickard was never mentioned or shown, so much as I recall. I realize he is little more than a baby at this point, but I would have thought we would at least see him. I think the only reference to him even in abstract was Jon speaking of the 5 (legitamite) Stark children at the direwolf scene. |
Quote:
He was seen - wasn't that him sitting on the beam when Bran was shooting arrows? |
Overall, I enjoyed it. I think they did well with casting for the most part. I don't like the casting of Cat (too old. She was supposed to be still on the edge of child-bearing, and she is about 50 on the show), and not very attactive. Dany is also worrying me a bit. She looks the part, but the acting was very stiff. Her character is so important that I hope it was just that she was trying to play scared, and she'll be able to not be robot-like as the show goes on.
I hope that people who haven't read the books don't get lost as it goes, because there isn't going to be a whole lot of time to flesh out the plots and motives going on. I imagine there are somethings that will be cut off and simplified, but still there is a lot of moving pieces in this story to keep up with. |
Quote:
Was it? I'll need to watch again and see. |
Quote:
Yes. |
Quote:
Yep, and it's his hair Robert ruffles when he's saying hello to the Starks |
Oh, and the magister is supposed to be fatter than the king. I guess they went another direction with that.
|
Quote:
Fatter than Robert?? I'm not sure such a thing is possible. Dude is hefty!! |
Speaking of Robert, Mark Addy may not be as tall as Robert is in the books, but I love him in this role. Honestly, I thought he stole his scenes with Ned.
|
Great episode. Joffery didn't say anything during this episode, but I certainly wanted to smack his face. I didn't see Tommen either
|
Quote:
He wasn't there when they got out of the carriage? Thought he was, right next to Myrcella... |
He might have been, just didnt notice him then
|
My impressions, in no particular order...
Very impressed with the show, and am really excited about forthcoming episodes. |
Quote:
Everyone's saying Cat is too old, but I don't buy it - frankly I just think it's sexist. Ned in the books is 35 and is being played by 50 year old (and wrinkly) Sean Bean. The kids are all aged up a few years too. No reason Cat shouldn't be aged-up to 50ish also, and the actress looks fine for that age. |
I agree, I like Catelyn just fine.
Okay, I know I missed Rickard. How did I miss Baelish? Which scene was he in? I can't recall if he made the trip north to Winterfell in the book, and I wasn't even thinking of him while watching the show tonight. |
Does EVERYONE except mer have HBO? :(
I'm really impressed with some of the cast so far. Bean is a gimme to put in a fantasy king thing thanks to Boromir. Peter Dinklage is AWESOME! He's amazing in everything I've seen him in, especially The Station Agent. Mark Addy too is great. He's wasted on Yes, Dear or whatever. He was better in The Full Monty. |
I haven't read the books, but enjoyed the premiere. My favorite part of the night, though, was the commercial for HBOGo. Every episode of every series streaming!
|
Baelish shouldn't have been in it, he didn't go to Winterfell. I didn't see him last night...did somebody say he was in it?
|
Quote:
He wasn't on the show last night. Someone was projecting I believe. The problem with Cat is, she is supposed to be a rival of Cersi. A little older and not quite as beautiful, but she is supposed to be more of a contemporary. This actress looks more like her mom. That is not sexist, it changes the dynamic. I also agree that I wish they hadn't changed the fact she pushes Eddard to take the job of Hand. It makes you wonder if they are going to change her character completely. At least her little look at Jon suggests she might still show him disdain. |
I enjoyed it. There was a hell of a lot of nudity though. I wasn't really expecting it to be such a near-constant thing. They didn't have to be so explicit, though I guess there is a place for that kind of thing in the book.
|
Quote:
Blah, sorry to hear this. May sound silly to say that, but my wife isn't big on nudity/sex in shows, so likely I'm going to have to watch this solo. Was really hoping it would be a show she would enjoy. |
Yeah, I agree that there was more nudity than I was expecting, though I know that the "sex/gore" angle is something that HBO is using to sell to certain groups in order to attract viewers. I thought it didn't detract from the story, but I would have preferred less.
|
Wade: There are at least two scenes that show sex in a pretty savage fashion (there's an orgy scene) and probably 5 or 6 that have some combination of topless women and bare ass. You probably see 15 different women topless throughout the episode. Definitely not the kind of thing you'd want to watch with someone who doesn't like seeing partial nudity and sex in movies.
|
Does anyone know when we might have rating numbers? I want to know when I can start getting my hopes up for a 2nd season
|
Quote:
Yeah, and we're not even close to some of the stuff with Dany obviously. Ahwell, such is life. Deadwood got to be too much for her, so yeah, I'll be watching solo. |
Quote:
What?!?! I must have missed that. As far as someone who hadn't read the books - how well did you find yourself following everything? I started thinking when I woke up this morning that maybe the book needed a voiceover/flashback to quickly summarize the history of say the Rebellion & the Targaryn's in exile and stuff. Be curious to hear if you felt like...lost with anything? |
Quote:
He was in the "this season on GoT" bits though... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.