EPT[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 1830
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States36292 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States2941 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13400 Posts
On April 15 2021 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Unless it is a restart of Season 8, I don't wanna hear it. https://twitter.com/GameOfThrones/status/1382390104124239874 They've been putting up a bunch of 10th anniversary trailers for s8 idk why. Prob nothing new happening though | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5037 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States36292 Posts
| ||
NonY
8440 Posts
The liberties that GoT takes are not more egregious than Martin takes in ASOIAF but because fewer people are reading high quality literature they are not as apparent. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
18843 Posts
Now ofc there is still a meaningful difference, someone like martin isn't going to become a canonical writer for a reason (outside of elitism which certainly plays some role in general), at the end of the day it's still fantasy with a lot of the typical genre problems. It's bloated, plot plays a huge rule instead of deeper introspective qualities, the quality of the prose isn't as high, etc. I guess if book 6 is ever officially announced i'll reread the whole thing and see if it still seems pretty good. I think it will, even if i won't have the same experience as with say 'east of eden' or 'of mice and men' | ||
|
NonY
8440 Posts
It reminds me of when I tried watching Attack on Titan. In the middle of a high action sequence, the action literally pauses while we hear a character's shallow inner monologue, and I'm just baffled why someone thought animation is a good medium for this story when the animation literally stops in order to hear stream of consciousness written on the level of the average fanfic author. There's no added value there. It's more like a concession "yes we chose this format for other reasons but it isn't good at this and we're not good at writing this so we're just gonna dump this here without adding any value to it so that we can get on with our story." It has been a long time since I read ASOIAF and I wish I had time to reread it in order to be as generous as possible in trying to find value in it again, but as far as I remember there is more value, for example, in Kaladin's struggle with depression than anything in ASOIAF. So many characters in ASOIAF are nihilists trying to survive in a cruel world. Some have more empathy and compassion than others. But nothing of value is produced when they interact other than entertainment. I think ASOIAF should've been more like Red Rising. Of course, Red Rising wouldn't exist the way it does without Pierce Brown having read ASOIAF first. He gives it high praise. But imo Pierce only improves upon it. He doesn't have so many redundant perspectives and has more value in the ones he does write about. The books aren't nearly as long and yet still produce so many visceral moments. IMO the reason Martin has the hardest time wrapping the series up is because there must be something of value beyond resolving the plot but he hasn't ever had any idea what it is. I think he only ever planned the plot and thought the rest would take care of itself as he wrote. And now for him to get his characters to where he planned for them to be in the end requires them to behave even more bizarrely than they already do. So he has trouble writing it out or he writes it out and scraps it because it doesn't make any sense. While I do think that GoT Season 8 was just a few revisions away from being significantly better, I find it astonishing that so much blame is placed on D&D rather than on Martin. His world, these characters... it was never building to something meaningful lol. Like never remotely doing so. It's just a bunch of people interacting. Like in a D&D campaign where you have each character created and an adventure for them to go on, there's no expectation of something of value to be created, or some grand resolution at the end. It's just a journey that is fun in and of itself and abruptly ends when it's over. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria16943 Posts
| ||
|
Husyelt
340 Posts
As for finishing the series, at the end of the day he just made the story too bloated. He doesn't have the prose of China Miéville or R. Scott Bakker, but he has carved out a nice spot alongside the best 80s and 90s fantasy authors, warts and all. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17386 Posts
On May 14 2021 06:23 sharkie wrote: Each time anyone tries to put blame on martin his fanboys swarm you. Gl nony! I mean, Nony seems to be extremely picky when it comes to books and entertainment judging by 2 of his posts in here. It's fine not to like them, but there is a reason it has a big audience and people love Martin's writing. I think his writing is good as well. Are they my favorite books? Nah, but they're pretty damn good (well most, I wasn't a big fan of the 4th book). Edit: adding onto this, I don't believe the Game of Thrones books will ever be finished either. He added too many additional plotlines and I don't think he knows how to tie them all off. I hope to be wrong, though I don't think I am. It's been almost 10 years since his last release and he keeps saying the next one is close to being done since season 3 or 4 of the TV show. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1154 Posts
On May 14 2021 03:40 NonY wrote: So many characters in ASOIAF are nihilists trying to survive in a cruel world. Some have more empathy and compassion than others. But nothing of value is produced when they interact other than entertainment. It's been a lot of years since I read it but that's how I remember it as well. There was no love or warmth anywhere in it, it really felt like misanthropy and sadism spun in a way that was entertaining in the beginning. I'm not against stuff that is bleak, like another example is McCarthy's "The Road", but at least that had some love and humanity in there amidst the cruelty. Think I got 3 books in to a Song Of Ice and Fire and felt no desire to go further or to watch the series. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
18843 Posts
On May 14 2021 03:40 NonY wrote: Hmm I guess realistic or 'real characters' is not the right way to say it. I don't expect characters in novels to be lifelike. I mean when an author dives into the feelings and psychology of a character, or at least has them do or say something that reveals them, it can either be to serve some other purpose (like advancing the plot or for character development) or it can be because there's value in the exploration of that character's inner workings. Martin frequently focuses on a character's inner workings but there's no payoff. It's serving some other purpose but also alienating so it'd be better if it wasn't written this way. But people praise him just for taking the dive. I guess if people like the story told in that manner (and don't mind its downsides), even if there's no extra value derived from it, then I'm glad for them. But better authors have had a bigger impact in 3rd person in one paragraph than he does in a whole first person chapter. It reminds me of when I tried watching Attack on Titan. In the middle of a high action sequence, the action literally pauses while we hear a character's shallow inner monologue, and I'm just baffled why someone thought animation is a good medium for this story when the animation literally stops in order to hear stream of consciousness written on the level of the average fanfic author. There's no added value there. It's more like a concession "yes we chose this format for other reasons but it isn't good at this and we're not good at writing this so we're just gonna dump this here without adding any value to it so that we can get on with our story." It has been a long time since I read ASOIAF and I wish I had time to reread it in order to be as generous as possible in trying to find value in it again, but as far as I remember there is more value, for example, in Kaladin's struggle with depression than anything in ASOIAF. So many characters in ASOIAF are nihilists trying to survive in a cruel world. Some have more empathy and compassion than others. But nothing of value is produced when they interact other than entertainment. I think ASOIAF should've been more like Red Rising. Of course, Red Rising wouldn't exist the way it does without Pierce Brown having read ASOIAF first. He gives it high praise. But imo Pierce only improves upon it. He doesn't have so many redundant perspectives and has more value in the ones he does write about. The books aren't nearly as long and yet still produce so many visceral moments. IMO the reason Martin has the hardest time wrapping the series up is because there must be something of value beyond resolving the plot but he hasn't ever had any idea what it is. I think he only ever planned the plot and thought the rest would take care of itself as he wrote. And now for him to get his characters to where he planned for them to be in the end requires them to behave even more bizarrely than they already do. So he has trouble writing it out or he writes it out and scraps it because it doesn't make any sense. While I do think that GoT Season 8 was just a few revisions away from being significantly better, I find it astonishing that so much blame is placed on D&D rather than on Martin. His world, these characters... it was never building to something meaningful lol. Like never remotely doing so. It's just a bunch of people interacting. Like in a D&D campaign where you have each character created and an adventure for them to go on, there's no expectation of something of value to be created, or some grand resolution at the end. It's just a journey that is fun in and of itself and abruptly ends when it's over. Hm i am not sure i'd even agree with some of your more extreme takes if i'd reread the series. Tbf, it's like ten years at this point so all i have i memories of how i felt about it at the time, at least for the most part. Still, i am not quite sure what you mean when you say that his way of doing things is alienating and has no extra value. I never got more than 5 episodes into attack on titan myself, it was just way too superficial in its inner monologues which haulted everything else to a stop, but i didn't get that same energy from martin at all. Sadly not familiar with red rising, i also stopped sanderson fairly fast because i didn't think much of his prose and style, seemed too simple to me when i tried it. I mostly just replied after reading your first post because you compared martin to all time greats of literature, well yes he cannot stand up against their prowess, but that's also something which i'd say isn't at all unique to him when it comes to genre writers. Genre for the most part is too limited by its expectations, for high fantasy that would be an overly long, "epic", story with a big cast and lots of lore. The priority isn't the same at all. When we compare it to ishiguro's take on fantasy in buried giant, it's merely a setting for his themes, in genre it is part of why people read it. My take on martin's trouble is fairly simple tbh, he just has too many balls in the air to juggle them all in satisfying manners, i don't really agree that there is no point to it all, it talks a lot about identity and the effects of war. I'd definitely disagree with your nihilism take, it's not nihilistic, it works a lot on broad ideas of honor and duty for example. D&D get the blame because it was their job to make a tv series which resonates with people. They largely failed to do so in the end. Even if what you said was 100% true (which i think it is not), they were largely on their own and could have done whatever they wanted to end the show. Saying it was purely like some form of dungeons and dragons adventure with no overarching themes and dramatic structure is a little perplexing to me as a statement tbh, even the show had clear strokes of that in the state it is in. On May 14 2021 06:23 sharkie wrote: Each time anyone tries to put blame on martin his fanboys swarm you. Gl nony! You should stick to talking about comics for kids tbh, i still remember your bad faith acting the last time, and that was years ago at this point as well. | ||
|
NonY
8440 Posts
D&D get the blame because it was their job to make a tv series which resonates with people. They largely failed to do so in the end. Even if what you said was 100% true (which i think it is not), they were largely on their own and could have done whatever they wanted to end the show. Saying it was purely like some form of dungeons and dragons adventure with no overarching themes and dramatic structure is a little perplexing to me as a statement tbh, even the show had clear strokes of that in the state it is in. I mean the show is undoubtedly better than the books, no? It seems like now whenever anyone talks about the show that's all they can remember is disappointment about the ending. But that was a tiny fraction of the show. At its greatest it was talked about among the best TV shows of all time, and it maintained that quality for an astonishingly long run. And even as you defend Martin's writing you are quick to admit that he cannot stand against the greatest writers of all time. So the judgment seems simple to me. Personally I highly recommend the show over the books as the actors' portrayals are more effective than Martin's writing. The story is trimmed down. The music adds a lot. I think the last few seasons suffered from being too ambitious. D&D were probably given a certain number of episodes they had left to work with and ended up being wrong about how much they could fit into them. And the ending... who knows if it was what Martin guided them toward or if Martin has a much better ending and he told them they couldn't do anything remotely like it so as to not spoil his book. Or if they 100% made it up themselves and thought that it was what was best. But for government to evolve because all the malevolent rulers happened to lose power and the remaining rulers decided to just be nicer, lol. Not sure that that's how it has generally transpired in history... it works a lot on broad ideas of honor and duty for example. I guess but what does that have to do with, for example, a 20-40 year old american reading the books as they came out? what's he saying to readers that has anything to do with the society they live in and how they live their lives? again i wish i could reread it specifically to draw that kind of thing out but in all the things i've read about it (by people who love the books and love analyzing them) you never hear this kind of thing. would actually love to read that kind of analysis if anyone has read it somewhere. the way that the people of westeros (and the other continents) live their lives just seems too remote from us. like i can read books written and set in the 19th century and their lessons seem timeless. im constantly like "wow this still applies exactly to society today." and yet these books which are written for the society i live in just feel alienating. i dont understand why the characters act the way they do. they aren't relatable i watched nomadland and before i watched it, i did not understand a person like Fern. after i watched it, i understood a lot more. storytelling successful! great job chloe zhao, frances mcdormand, et al but as i read asoiaf, the whole time it's just uncanny valley territory. characters i dont understand never become understandable. a shallow action book doesn't expect me to understand the characters which arent really real people or meant to be relatable in any way. so i can just enjoy the action without thinking too much about the characters' motivations. but martin throws the psychology of each character in my face, so it's not possible to ignore | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands15677 Posts
And that they did not have enough episodes to make it work is patently false. HBO wanted them to make more seasons (the rumour is 10 I believe), they themselves said no, we can do it with only 1 more. And looking back it appears obvious why, they had the Star Wars offer and needed to out from making GoT to work on that. More time would have helped a ton, trying to cram the end of the White Walkers and Cersei + Dany in 1 season simply did not fit. Things like Dany snapping and going full evil are likely in line with where Martin wants to go but that change needed more development. | ||
|
NonY
8440 Posts
On May 15 2021 03:31 Gorsameth wrote: And that they did not have enough episodes to make it work is patently false. HBO wanted them to make more seasons (the rumour is 10 I believe), they themselves said no, we can do it with only 1 more. And looking back it appears obvious why, they had the Star Wars offer and needed to out from making GoT to work on that. Good to know but whether the limited episodes were self-imposed or not is immaterial. Things like Dany snapping and going full evil are likely in line with where Martin wants to go but that change needed more development. What more could be done for Dany's development? She was a top 3 character by screen time and a ton of that time was spent wondering whether she would be crazy or benevolent. Not just with her screen time, but a lot of dialogue by the other major characters was about whether she was good or not. In the end she'd either snap or she wouldn't, and she did. If someone made a supercut of all the time developing "dany might be crazy" it would be massively long. Before she snapped, if you asked everyone watching the show "is there any hint that dany might snap and kill innocents with her dragon?" idk how anyone could say no. Even the most casual of viewers would've been aware of that. And yet after she snaps "needed more development! it was unbelievable!" I think the whole point was to have a character with a lot of potential for good, but with obvious red flags, give everyone a lot of hope and then fail them. "She really got her evil targaryen urges under control, she was gonna be good! It should've taken more for her to snap!" lol :o it's not the storytelling that was disappointing, it was her | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands15677 Posts
On May 15 2021 05:20 NonY wrote: Whether or nor Dany could/would snapped wasn't the issue, as you said they made it obvious enough she had that side. It was how it finally happened that was silly.Good to know but whether the limited episodes were self-imposed or not is immaterial. What more could be done for Dany's development? She was a top 3 character by screen time and a ton of that time was spent wondering whether she would be crazy or benevolent. Not just with her screen time, but a lot of dialogue by the other major characters was about whether she was good or not. In the end she'd either snap or she wouldn't, and she did. If someone made a supercut of all the time developing "dany might be crazy" it would be massively long. Before she snapped, if you asked everyone watching the show "is there any hint that dany might snap and kill innocents with her dragon?" idk how anyone could say no. Even the most casual of viewers would've been aware of that. And yet after she snaps "needed more development! it was unbelievable!" I think the whole point was to have a character with a lot of potential for good, but with obvious red flags, give everyone a lot of hope and then fail them. "She really got her evil targaryen urges under control, she was gonna be good! It should've taken more for her to snap!" lol :o it's not the storytelling that was disappointing, it was her The issue was "Kings Landing surrenders, I have won, f*** it lets kill everyone instead". That moment needed more. Imagine Greyworm's Girlfriend (sorry, can't think off her name atm) doesn't die at the meeting at the gate but instead Cersei kills her out of spite when the city surrenders. Something like that atleast would give Dany a reason to snap at that moment, rather then at seemingly the sound of the cities surrender. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
18843 Posts
On May 15 2021 03:16 NonY wrote: I mean the show is undoubtedly better than the books, no? It seems like now whenever anyone talks about the show that's all they can remember is disappointment about the ending. But that was a tiny fraction of the show. At its greatest it was talked about among the best TV shows of all time, and it maintained that quality for an astonishingly long run. And even as you defend Martin's writing you are quick to admit that he cannot stand against the greatest writers of all time. So the judgment seems simple to me. Personally I highly recommend the show over the books as the actors' portrayals are more effective than Martin's writing. The story is trimmed down. The music adds a lot. I think the last few seasons suffered from being too ambitious. D&D were probably given a certain number of episodes they had left to work with and ended up being wrong about how much they could fit into them. And the ending... who knows if it was what Martin guided them toward or if Martin has a much better ending and he told them they couldn't do anything remotely like it so as to not spoil his book. Or if they 100% made it up themselves and thought that it was what was best. But for government to evolve because all the malevolent rulers happened to lose power and the remaining rulers decided to just be nicer, lol. Not sure that that's how it has generally transpired in history... It depends how you look at it. If we compare the show to all other shows and compare asoiaf to all other literature, sure then the show is closer to the best of the best than the novels are in their medium. If it's more about the inherent qualities of each work itself, then it's fairly difficult to assess because they are different mediums, and more importantly because the show is done and the books are not finished. Ultimately i don't think that the show's early quality makes up for the ending, every story has a central point which showcases itself in the climax, that is where the show failed spectacularly to such a degree that i personally wouldn't ever wanna start a rewatch because i know that it ultimately doesn't lead to anything satisfying. Ofc i am quick to admit that martin cannot compete vs literary greats, that's fairly self-evident for anyone who has read some of the best works i think. That's fine though, he doesn't have to compete vs alighieri, milton, steinbeck, ishiguro or whoever else one wants to name. That kind of standard is met by almost noone, that is why they're the greats. Now when it comes to the strength of film (tv series are part of that in a way), well yeah there definitely are strengths of an audiovisual medium compared to literature, though i also think that GoT in particular became victim of its own success and watered down over time quite noticeably in almost all aspects other than general production (which in general got better due to more budget). D&D wanted to move on and didn't finish the show with the needed care on top of that. On May 15 2021 03:16 NonY wrote: I guess but what does that have to do with, for example, a 20-40 year old american reading the books as they came out? what's he saying to readers that has anything to do with the society they live in and how they live their lives? again i wish i could reread it specifically to draw that kind of thing out but in all the things i've read about it (by people who love the books and love analyzing them) you never hear this kind of thing. would actually love to read that kind of analysis if anyone has read it somewhere. the way that the people of westeros (and the other continents) live their lives just seems too remote from us. like i can read books written and set in the 19th century and their lessons seem timeless. im constantly like "wow this still applies exactly to society today." and yet these books which are written for the society i live in just feel alienating. i dont understand why the characters act the way they do. they aren't relatable i watched nomadland and before i watched it, i did not understand a person like Fern. after i watched it, i understood a lot more. storytelling successful! great job chloe zhao, frances mcdormand, et al but as i read asoiaf, the whole time it's just uncanny valley territory. characters i dont understand never become understandable. a shallow action book doesn't expect me to understand the characters which arent really real people or meant to be relatable in any way. so i can just enjoy the action without thinking too much about the characters' motivations. but martin throws the psychology of each character in my face, so it's not possible to ignore I find that pov a little puzzling tbh, at the end of the day each storyline and character goes through their own struggles and has to decide their own moral code depending on each situation. That is how you in general characterize people in fiction, how do they act in situations which have clear downsides for them. An easy decision is no decision at all. That applies early with ned stark and goes throughout the story with basically all characters. It's not terribly profound on the level of dostojewsky when jaime decides to not get exploited / emotionally abused again by his sister, but it's still effective storytelling and applicable to anyone's life. I still haven't seen nomadland haha, though i personally also am less interested in it because i read a lot of criticism towards its whitewashing of amazon. Still, you compare a drama which is mostly interested in humanistic storytelling with a high fantasy story which has different priorities, even though it tries to be better than what came before. But yeah i really just disagree with the level of criticism here, on the one hand you compared it to the absolute greats which would make sense when trying to differentiate between different 'tiers' of good/great art, on the other you outright say it's 'shallow action' with character who 'are not relatable at all' which sounds more modern blockbuster cinema. It's somewhat difficult for me to follow you there tbh, it's hard because of these 10 years in between my reading of the books and now, but it's also difficult because you're so extreme to the point where i cannot agree at all. On May 15 2021 05:20 NonY wrote: Good to know but whether the limited episodes were self-imposed or not is immaterial. What more could be done for Dany's development? She was a top 3 character by screen time and a ton of that time was spent wondering whether she would be crazy or benevolent. Not just with her screen time, but a lot of dialogue by the other major characters was about whether she was good or not. In the end she'd either snap or she wouldn't, and she did. If someone made a supercut of all the time developing "dany might be crazy" it would be massively long. Before she snapped, if you asked everyone watching the show "is there any hint that dany might snap and kill innocents with her dragon?" idk how anyone could say no. Even the most casual of viewers would've been aware of that. And yet after she snaps "needed more development! it was unbelievable!" I think the whole point was to have a character with a lot of potential for good, but with obvious red flags, give everyone a lot of hope and then fail them. "She really got her evil targaryen urges under control, she was gonna be good! It should've taken more for her to snap!" lol :o it's not the storytelling that was disappointing, it was her When people say 'more development' they don't necessarily mean more screentime, they mean the quality of making it sensible and organic. A lot of screentime doesn't do much when the storytelling mechanics do not intertwine and present something people can buy into. Dany in the show had a few crucial moments where they tried to make her fall into madness sensible, but it was all too sudden and poorly staged while ultimately presenting not much more than 'well she cray cray' as the final plot device for the climax of jon killing her. If martin truly pulls of the same, then it's just as unmotivated and nonsensical with truly no storytelling value to it. Though that is partly also on emilia clarke and kit harrington who didn't manage to bring out the tragedy which should be there, they had no chemistry outside of the script problems regarding their relationship. Now if i had to guess, i'd assume that in the books (f)aegon will serve as the first step towards her seeing enemies everywhere, including jon who just like (f)aegon will be another targaryen who suddently appears, is loved more and has a better claim. Whereas in the show cersei of all people had to be the final boss which was present during the battle at kingslanding, who really does not represent anything in particular in regards to dany. Anyway, that's ofc just speculation, but it would fit into what we know now i think. I'm not sure if there is more to talk about, we both probably have nothing truly specific due to the large timeframe in between our reads and now, and tbh i am also not overly motivated to talk a lot about asoiaf or the show anymore, i only responded because it felt a little unfair to compare martin to the authors you mentioned, two different things, not writing a masterpiece =/= being terrible, lots of shades to good art. (though you seem to think it's on the bad side of the spectrum, where i'd definitely disagree) | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland4411 Posts
| ||
|
karazax
United States3735 Posts
Overall the show wanted to hit key events and didn’t care if their changes made any sense. They generally did a good job when adapting material from the book, and generally their completely original story lines were terrible. Once the show got to almost completely original content it was more bad than good. There were individual moments that were cool, but the overall results were terrible more often than not. | ||
| ||
