2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Film & TV => Topic started by: Magnetica on 10 June, 2018, 07:19:25 PM

Title: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Magnetica on 10 June, 2018, 07:19:25 PM
Can't believe a thread hasn't been started on this already.

Several news sources were  reporting yesterday that there are plans for a Game of Thrones prequel set thousands of years before the current series.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Tiplodocus on 11 June, 2018, 09:29:14 AM
File under "Pointless but I'll probably watch".

Dear Producers,

Fans have not "always wanted to see..."

Yours
Everyone, ever apart from those few guys and gals.

Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: moogie101 on 11 June, 2018, 09:57:09 AM
I think ALL the focus should be on not screwing up the last series not all these suggested spinoffs
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: rogue69 on 26 June, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Hopefully they will use the prequel book about the hedge knight Sir Duncan the Tall & his squire Egg
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: rogue69 on 10 January, 2019, 09:10:26 AM
HBO have announced some of the actors to be in this.
https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/game-of-thrones-prequel-what-to-know.html
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: broodblik on 10 January, 2019, 01:58:44 PM
I will watch it and hopefully it can be as good as Thrones
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: wedgeski on 10 January, 2019, 05:14:17 PM
I can't see this being worth the effort, but I live in hope and will give it a watch. It seems to have a solid roster of good young actors, but as yet no big names, even with such a pedigree? That doesn't suggest that the pilot script is blowing anyone's socks off.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 10 January, 2019, 05:55:42 PM
Quote from: wedgeski on 10 January, 2019, 05:14:17 PM
I can't see this being worth the effort, but I live in hope and will give it a watch. It seems to have a solid roster of good young actors, but as yet no big names, even with such a pedigree? That doesn't suggest that the pilot script is blowing anyone's socks off.

Alternatively, it may be that HBO are so confident that simply slapping the GoT brand on a series will deliver an audience that they've chosen to save the money that they would have spent on a big 'draw' name and and chuck it at the effects budget instead.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: radiator on 10 January, 2019, 06:09:04 PM
Yeah, and remember that Sean Bean was by far the most famous (arguably the only internationally famous) cast member of the original series when it launched. All of the young cast (who went on to become the real main characters of the show) were total unknowns.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: radiator on 10 January, 2019, 06:11:12 PM
As for this series, I'm not particularly interested given how much of a nosedive the quality of writing has taken in the last few series of the main show, though I believe Jane Goldman is involved, and I tend to enjoy her stuff, so could be a surprise.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Tiplodocus on 11 January, 2019, 10:19:34 AM
Quote from: radiator on 10 January, 2019, 06:09:04 PM
Yeah, and remember that Sean Bean was by far the most famous (arguably the only internationally famous) cast member of the original series when it launched. All of the young cast (who went on to become the real main characters of the show) were total unknowns.

Charles Dance wants a word.

Writing budget. Then effects budget for me. As the effects got better, the writing became a bit more slapdash.


"Shit,  character X needs to be in Y for the next scene. I know this journey took a month in Season 1 but let's just say they ran. Nobody will notice."
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 11 January, 2019, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 11 January, 2019, 10:19:34 AM
Charles Dance wants a word.

Didn't turn up until S2.

My mistake. My memory's playing tricks on me. Sorry!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Tiplodocus on 11 January, 2019, 04:06:39 PM
To be fair, I don't think he turned up until a few episodes in.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 11 January, 2019, 04:28:43 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 11 January, 2019, 04:06:39 PM
To be fair, I don't think he turned up until a few episodes in.

Episode 7, apparently. No sooner had I typed the original post than a little voice crept into the back of my head and said "Are you completely sure about that?" so I had to google it...
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 05:56:09 PM
Yeah, IIRC he was a guest star in season one, and wasn't a regular until season 2. I'd also argue that he wasn't a household name prior to GoT.

QuoteWriting budget. Then effects budget for me. As the effects got better, the writing became a bit more slapdash.

Absolutely. I think they really peaked with seasons 3 & 4 and it's been a steady decline ever since then. It's pretty obvious that the showrunners (like many readers) loved the first three books but don't really care so much for the books that follow, with how many liberties they've taken with the narrative. You can also tell how much the writer favour certain characters over others - the portrayal of Stannis is a particular sore point - he's a standout fan-favourite character in the books, but the show's writers never really got a grasp on what makes him compelling (and ended up giving many of his standout moments to Jon Snow).

You don't have to do too much reading between the lines in order to detect something of a rift between the showrunners and George RR Martin ever since season 4 when the show really started to diverge from the books (4 being the last season Martin himself wrote on). I don't think there is outright animosity, but I do think Martin is a little stung as he was always very vocal about wanting  a longer run (10 full seasons) and a more faithful adaptation of his books, while the showrunners (understandably) wanted to wrap things up much sooner.

It's still essential viewing in terms of pure spectacle, but really that's all it is - spectacle, whereas those first four seasons were far more interesting and engaging on a character level, and really turned viewer expectations upside down. It's hard to watch the 'Beyond the Wall' episode of season 7 - packed as it was with action movie cliches, and reconcile it with the show as it was circa season 1.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 11 January, 2019, 06:44:36 PM
Quote from: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 05:56:09 PM
the portrayal of Stannis is a particular sore point - he's a standout fan-favourite character in the books, but the show's writers never really got a grasp on what makes him compelling

Really?! I've read all the books and I can barely remember him.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Leigh S on 11 January, 2019, 06:57:49 PM
At least the declinging quality of story telling in GoT later series means I have some incentive to buy the books if and when they arrive - that's if I can bring myself to revisit Feast of Crows onwards to remind myself who Griff etc are!
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 11 January, 2019, 07:05:18 PM
Quote from: Leigh S on 11 January, 2019, 06:57:49 PM
At least the declinging quality of story telling in GoT later series means I have some incentive to buy the books if and when they arrive - that's if I can bring myself to revisit Feast of Crows onwards to remind myself who Griff etc are!

Again: really? If ever I wanted to see an example of the Law of Diminishing Returns, it's reading the Song of Ice & Fire (aka GoT) books.

The reason why the TV series takes such liberties with the later books is because there's very little plot, drawn out over hundreds of pages. This is not to defend the writing choices the writers did make, merely an observation that the later books are pretty thin pickings. I have literally no desire to read the final (?) book if and when GRRM deigns to finish it.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Leigh S on 11 January, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
I would have felt the same, Jim, if it wasnt for how badly plotted the last series was - it will take some reversal for the series to have a satisfying ending , so I'm left clutching at the books in the hope of piecing together some enjoyment out of the latter half of the tale

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 11 January, 2019, 06:44:36 PM
Quote from: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 05:56:09 PM
the portrayal of Stannis is a particular sore point - he's a standout fan-favourite character in the books, but the show's writers never really got a grasp on what makes him compelling

Really?! I've read all the books and I can barely remember him.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 07:40:52 PM
I have very much come round on the later books. I - like most people - didn't much care for them on first reading but I love them now. While they still have some epic 'wtf' moments*, they are dense and are generally more concerned with the characters internal struggles and dilemnas than they are with exciting plot twists. They also include very important character development for Dany and Jon who, having both ascended to power in the previous books, now have to grapple with the politics of ruling and attempting to win the peace (and both failing in their own ways).

A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons, taken together (they were originally intended as one book) are also quite deliberately slower paced to represent the lull between the cataclysmic events of the opening trilogy, whereas the intended next book (The Winds of Winter) will see things gathering pace for the big finale (for a start, it's opening chapters will essentially comprise two giant battles). They aren't page turners in the same sense, but I very much disagree with the common opinion that Martin has 'lost control' over the narrative. I fully understand why some people struggle with the Dorne and Iron islands plots in A Feast for Crows - I did at first - but there is a lot of meat on the bones and the books are well worth revisiting.

Having said all that, I totally understand the need to pare them down for TV adaptation, I just think the TV show writers have badly floundered in how they have handled things, especially concerning Stannis and the farcical Dorne storyline.

*Like the Daznak's Pit scene (where Dany escapes from the Gladiator stadium on the back of Drogon) which imo the show totally bungled and is so much cooler and frankly more metal as it plays out in the books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Funt Solo on 11 January, 2019, 10:09:49 PM
I enjoy Game of Thrones - the books and the series.  But I don't understand why he's written a history book (Fire & Blood), except that clearly he's got some form of writer's block with The Winds of Winter.  And I don't understand why everyone is standing still facing in the same direction here:

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/daenerys-season-six-finale.jpeg)

Did they sail all the way to Westeros like that?  Didn't they get cold?  Hadn't they been on a ship before?  What are they looking at?  "It's only a model" etc.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: JOE SOAP on 11 January, 2019, 10:16:33 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 11 January, 2019, 10:09:49 PM
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/daenerys-season-six-finale.jpeg)

Did they sail all the way to Westeros like that?  Didn't they get cold?  Hadn't they been on a ship before?  What are they looking at?  "It's only a model" etc.

They have dragons.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Rusty on 12 January, 2019, 01:31:10 AM
Yeah, I never really saw the thing about Stannis in the show. I kept hearing how he was supposed to be this awesome character. All I ever got the impression of that he was a weak, pussywhipped gobshite that had plans and executed them like an utter moron, getting people killed. How anyone followed him on the show is beyond me.

As for this prequel, hopefully it just does its own thing, because most things that are remotely successful and have spin-offs that try to capture what made the original brilliant ends up failing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Leigh S on 12 January, 2019, 09:07:39 AM
This what I'm hoping for from a reread - I didn't strugglw with the later books as much as I feared I would given what I'd heard. and foudn the ongoing stories of the characters I knew near as compelling as I had always.  The new characters not so much, and with the TV ignoring them completely or giving their plotws to others, I would need to reread to get everything straight -I wouldnt put it past a second read to be a much better experience


Quote from: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 07:40:52 PM
I have very much come round on the later books. I - like most people - didn't much care for them on first reading but I love them now. While they still have some epic 'wtf' moments*, they are dense and are generally more concerned with the characters internal struggles and dilemnas than they are with exciting plot twists. They also include very important character development for Dany and Jon who, having both ascended to power in the previous books, now have to grapple with the politics of ruling and attempting to win the peace (and both failing in their own ways).

A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons, taken together (they were originally intended as one book) are also quite deliberately slower paced to represent the lull between the cataclysmic events of the opening trilogy, whereas the intended next book (The Winds of Winter) will see things gathering pace for the big finale (for a start, it's opening chapters will essentially comprise two giant battles). They aren't page turners in the same sense, but I very much disagree with the common opinion that Martin has 'lost control' over the narrative. I fully understand why some people struggle with the Dorne and Iron islands plots in A Feast for Crows - I did at first - but there is a lot of meat on the bones and the books are well worth revisiting.

Having said all that, I totally understand the need to pare them down for TV adaptation, I just think the TV show writers have badly floundered in how they have handled things, especially concerning Stannis and the farcical Dorne storyline.

*Like the Daznak's Pit scene (where Dany escapes from the Gladiator stadium on the back of Drogon) which imo the show totally bungled and is so much cooler and frankly more metal as it plays out in the books.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Rara Avis on 16 February, 2019, 06:06:46 PM
It's been a while since I read the books but I loved book Stannis. He's a very honourable character who is slowly descending into dishonour but he's more sinned against than sinning so to speak. See the thing is that in the book it's maybe more emphasised that he IS the rightful Kind of Westeros (being Robert's next legitimate male relative). He also knows that Cersei has been having sex with her brother, conspired to get Jon Arryn (well respected and liked character) killed, probably killed Robert and chopped Ned's head off. In the greater scheme he's the only honourable man in a sea of scoundrels. However, he had fallen under the influence of Melisandre, I think she befriends the wife first and then gains Stannis trust, the next thing they are burning people on the beach. It's all shown as part of his growing desperation to a) do the right thing and b) be recognised as the King. He also has Melisandre telling him he is the reincarnation of legendary figure Azor Ahai and you don't get to see that in the show really.

Quote from: Rusty on 26 November, 1974, 07:37:50 PM
Yeah, I never really saw the thing about Stannis in the show. I kept hearing how he was supposed to be this awesome character. All I ever got the impression of that he was a weak, pussywhipped gobshite that had plans and executed them like an utter moron, getting people killed. How anyone followed him on the show is beyond me.

As for this prequel, hopefully it just does its own thing, because most things that are remotely successful and have spin-offs that try to capture what made the original brilliant ends up failing.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Richard on 17 February, 2019, 11:51:18 AM
I completely understand that fans of the books will be disappointed with any divergence from the books in the tv show. I don't doubt that I would feel the same way myself. But since I haven't read any of the books, I can only judge the show on its own merits, and I think it's been consistently fantastic throughout. There's only ever been one bad episode, which someone has mentioned already, and that had so many things wrong with it that it's impossible to understand how it was ever made. But there was so much criticism of it at the time that I hope lessons were learned and they won't fuck up the last series.

I didn't really want to see a prequel though. I'd rather see a sequel 40 years later, when Poderick is a veteran knight like Sur Bannister was, and Danaerys and Sansa are old and wise, and there's a whole new generation of new characters dealing with some new crisis, including the currently unborn adult children of some of the current characters.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: Rara Avis on 17 February, 2019, 11:54:55 AM
Maybe there is no later?

Had a thought the other day .. what if the white walkers are on the move because it's summer where they're from and they have no choice but to go South or they'll die.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: radiator on 06 March, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: Rusty on 12 January, 2019, 01:31:10 AM
Yeah, I never really saw the thing about Stannis in the show. I kept hearing how he was supposed to be this awesome character. All I ever got the impression of that he was a weak, pussywhipped gobshite that had plans and executed them like an utter moron, getting people killed. How anyone followed him on the show is beyond me.

QuoteSee the thing is that in the book it's maybe more emphasised that he IS the rightful Kind of Westeros (being Robert's next legitimate male relative).... In the greater scheme he's the only honourable man in a sea of scoundrels.

This. Book Stannis is basically Dredd - he isn't someone you'd want to have a beer with, but there's a certain appeal to his stoicism, his rigid adherence to the law, his inability to suffer fools and his desire of justice. Of all the contenders for the throne, he's the only one looking at the bigger picture and trying to do something about it. Fans like him because of this, and because he came to the rescue of the Night's Watch, and because (in the books) he is almost certainly going to be the one to rally the North and smash the Boltons. The thing the TV show got wrong is that it portrayed him as just another petty wannabe ruler out for himself. Book Stannis doesn't even necessarily want to be king - he simply sees it as his duty. He's a difficult character to like by design, and I totally understand why the writers of the TV show struggled with him. It's partly a problem of casting - I remember that Christopher Ecclestone was heavily rumoured for the role, and tbh I think he would have been much better for it than the guy they went with. Ecclestone has exactly the right kind of intensity for Stannis.

QuoteI completely understand that fans of the books will be disappointed with any divergence from the books in the tv show.

It isn't really a case of 'any divergence' from the books - in many ways I think the show has done a great job of adaptation - paring down the plot and trimming, combining or vastly simplifying extraneous storylines and characters. It's more that the TV show has largely abandoned all sense of logic and plausibility in recent years, and indulged in action movie cliche again and again. Characters behaving wildly out of character in service of the plot, things like that.

I'm currently rewatching the whole series in anticipation for the final season, and it's startling just how much season 1 feels like a totally different show to what came later. It's so much more grounded and so much more about the characters and their relationships. Despite the lack of budget compared to later seasons, the world of Westeros feels so much bigger and so much richer. The dialogue is so much better written and despite the gratuitous nudity t(hat was more of a thing early on) it feels much more intelligent and mature than the show of season 7.

It's also a little disappointing how the show has basically descended into straight up 'good vs evil' tropes when the books are all about shades of grey. Increasingly as the show goes on the writers consistently twist and mangle the plot of the books to make sure that their designated pet favourite characters - Dany, Jon, Jaime and especially Tyrion - never come across as doing anything bad and are always painted in a much more favourable light than they are in the books (where they all do some very morally questionable - or even straight up barbaric things) which I think loses a lot of what made the characters so interesting in the books - "the human heart in conflict with itself" and all that.
Title: Re: Game of Thrones prequel
Post by: sheridan on 08 March, 2019, 11:38:38 AM
Quote from: radiator on 11 January, 2019, 05:56:09 PM
Yeah, IIRC he was a guest star in season one, and wasn't a regular until season 2. I'd also argue that he wasn't a household name prior to GoT.


I'd kind of agree with that.  We all appear to have known who he was prior to Game of Thrones, but I can only think of two things he actually starred in (Chimera - mini-series from the mid-1990s) and The Golden Child.  Internationally he's never been as famous as Sean Bean is.