Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Game of Thrones prequel  (Read 1319 times)

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12497
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #15 on: 11 January, 2019, 06:44:36 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.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Leigh S

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5507
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #16 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!

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12497
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #17 on: 11 January, 2019, 07:05:18 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.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Leigh S

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5507
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #18 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

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.
« Last Edit: 11 January, 2019, 07:27:49 pm by Leigh S »

radiator

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9976
  • A fry without beans is a mere meat collage.
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #19 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.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5994
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #20 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:



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.
fate amenable to change

JOE SOAP

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14854
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #21 on: 11 January, 2019, 10:16:33 pm »


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.

Rusty

  • Member
  • Page Numbering Droid
  • **
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #22 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.

Leigh S

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5507
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #23 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


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.

Rara Avis

  • Member
  • Sentient Tea Bot
  • **
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #24 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.

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.

Richard

  • Member
  • Evil Cyborg
  • ****
  • Posts: 2060
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #25 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.

Rara Avis

  • Member
  • Sentient Tea Bot
  • **
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #26 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.

radiator

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9976
  • A fry without beans is a mere meat collage.
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #27 on: 06 March, 2019, 08:00:51 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.

Quote
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).... 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.

Quote
I 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.

sheridan

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3852
    • View Profile
    • Wilde Wood
Re: Game of Thrones prequel
« Reply #28 on: 08 March, 2019, 11:38:38 am »
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.