HBO - Game of Thrones

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr Morden**

Dreadwinter wrote:I love the casting a lot, even though I pictures some of the characters a little differently myself.

I pictured Eddard to look more like the character who played Benjen and I pictured Robert Baratheon to be much taller.

But, I like how they are. Especially Tyrion and Jaime, those are spot on.

Enjoyed the first episode - I did like the clockwork map......

I am in thr same boat - some of the people are very like those I pictured in the books - Jamie, Ned, Tyrion, Dany's brother,
Others are different - Dany, Cersi, Jon

Not bad different - just different - for instance, Dany is described as tall and "too skinny" by her brother

The wolves are a little lacking in screen presence but they do have a lot of things to cram in.

Some of the nude scens were appropriate I feel - Hell I love Gods of the Arena - others less so.

And of course glad they kept the "The things I do for love" - Classic moment

**dogma**

Mr Morden wrote:
Not bad different - just different - for instance, Dany is described as tall and "too skinny" by her brother

In defense of Dany's casting, they had to do something in order to maker he look more mature in order to go the route of full nudity, which may or may not justify it for you.

Additionally, I always read every thing Viserys said in description of Dany to be reflective of his hypercritical and controlling nature, not accuracy.

**mister robouteo**

Tyrion, king henry, the stark kids (especially arya) were all spot on to my mental pictures. Ned stark not so much. and the Lannister twins.. WAY off.

I had pictured Jaime Lannister as more 'hunky' and cercei more 'vixeny' and all that romance novel cover looking faces and long flowing hair and stuff. Not that they are unattractive actors, but they both look pretty plain I thought, not particularly striking standing out as these beautiful golden idealisms like I read them as.

Sure later on, Jaime gets all rough and shaves off the locks and grows some stubble to disguise himself as 'normal', but he started out as that guy other guys can't stand in the night clubs. He's buff, he's witty, he's a smartass, arrogant, handsome etc etc. You are supposed to hate him early on. He's "that guy". But the guy they have playing him looks like just an average joe, not particularly striking.

Same with cersei, she should be the woman with the really pretty face with evil serpent eyes and a bod that all the other girls are jealous of, and the bitch queen vanity that all the other ladies hate. Instead, she's just kind of like another vaguelly attractive actress person.

That's just my impression though. Mental pictures are never the same for people.

**alarmingrick**

Pyronick wrote:Episode two was VERY good! I honestly can't imagine Tyrion being played out any better. Good ending on the episode too, just a taste of what's to come.

Agreed! my wife and i are hooked. and i hope all of our prudish watchers are a little happier.

**Grakmar**

Agree with quite a few posters here. My thoughts on the subject:

Casting:

Overall, excellent choices.

The Lannister twins could have been a bit more OTT hot/hunky. But, I think that's a modern perspective on things. Someone who spends a month on the road without modern conveniences like showers and proper make-up won't look amazing by modern standard, even though they would by period-appropriate standards.

Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect. Age issues are a little squeamish in the books, and seeing it on film would cross the appropriate and legal lines.

Sean Bean is great as Eddard Stark. But, they should have dyed his hair darker. The kids do a great job of having the Stark vs Tully look (apart from Rob who should have a more Tully look). And,

Spoiler:

.

Storyline:

Things are moving rather quickly. I wonder how well people who haven't read the book will be able to keep up with the story. I assume it will end up like LotR, where people who have only seen the films gather the major plot points just fine, but miss out on some of the details.

I also feel that there could be a bit more dialog focused on exposition. We just from scene to scene rather quickly, and a simple line or two from a character explaining what is going on would help.

I'm also shocked that they only plan on doing 10 episodes to cover all of the book. There are a TON of characters vital to the storyline, and they won't be able to be skipped over very well. I'd think making this 20 episodes would have been more appropriate.

Nudity:

So far, there's been quite a bit of it. But, the book has sexuality as a central theme, so it's not totally out of place.

I am somewhat bothered by their choice of doing only T&A. I'm just fine with TV or movies that go out of their way to exclude nudity at all. But, once you go for nudity, I feel like you shouldn't shy away from some things. Having a sex scene that goes out of its way to only show people from the waist up in more jarring than having them under the sheets entirely, IMO.

HBO also seems to be focusing more on the "hot young actress" nudity than anything else. In the book, Catelyn was nude when Maester Luwin delivered the note from her sister. (She covers up eventually, but she makes a joke about modesty being stupid since he delivered her 5 children.) The show cut that. My cynical side says that it's because the actress is too old (by Hollywood standards).

**Mannahnin**

Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect.

I don't see why. Marriagability is based on political grounds or sexual maturity. Or both. In the books this one was clearly both. If she was sufficiently younger that she wasn't physically mature, Drogo wouldn't have wanted her. He's not a pedophile. She easily looks as young as she should.

**Grakmar**

Mannahnin wrote:
Daenerys should look much younger, but I can understand why they had to change that aspect.

I don't see why. Marriagability is based on political grounds or sexual maturity. Or both. In the books this one was clearly both. If she was sufficiently younger that she wasn't physically mature, Drogo wouldn't have wanted her. He's not a pedophile. She easily looks as young as she should.

I just mean that the actress clearly looks much older than 13. IRL, she's 23 or 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Clarke).

**Mannahnin**

Maybe you know a lot more 13 year olds than I do. If a 13 year old is physically mature, they can look very much like that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328538/

This is one of GoT's credibility flaws, though. While historically marriages at so young an age were fairly common for political purposes, women weren't generally physically mature until considerably older. If the writers of the TV series are breaking from GoT's text in this area to make her a little older, IMO that's an improvement.

**Lord Scythican**

Classic case of Nerd Rage:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/domestic-abuse/man-battered-kin-over-hbos-game-thrones-780215

**boogeyman**

I guess I will finally chime in now that I have seen the show. I think it was good and the acting/casting was good as well; however, I haven't read any of the books and don't have any preconceived images in my head of the characters. I plan to continue watching it. One thing that I think would have helped was either me taking notes as I watched or if they would have added a bio/guide in the beginning to help me keep all the characters straight. Granted we (my wife and I) watched the first half with multiple breaks and the second part days later, but I had to ask her if the two at the end were brother and sister.

My other problem is that, in trying to clarify what was happening, I stumbled across some future spoilers.

**Eldanar**

There was a website I saw a while back that had a bio of each of the main characters. Also, HBO quite often does little 5 minute bios, etc., for these types of shows, and you might be able to find something there.

But I also have read the books (several years ago...)

**Lord Scythican**

Well I must say I am very impressed with this show. It seems to be following the books really well. If it keeps this up it will be one of my favorite shows. However if it goes the Legend of the Seeker route, I will stop watching it.

**scarletsquig**

Mannahnin wrote:
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.

I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.

I apologize. I believe your position on the "naked woman with ukulele" scene is not only incorrect, but so completely backwards as to evoke a humor reaction due to its absurdity. I did not intend the comment to be insulting, but there was really no need for it.

I think our arguments and the scene itself make the point perfectly clearly without either me telling you that your position is humorous or you responding to wrong with wrong by swearing at me.

biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.

Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.

This is changing the subject. We were talking about artistic merit and aesthetics before. Note that I am talking above about what we're better off seeing. Now you're talking about pragmatic concerns and ratings.

I don't think the syndication or MA ratings issues are a problem for HBO. If they thought they could make more money or a better product without the nudity, I expect they'd have less of it. They make a lot of money and they earn a lot of critical awards for their work.

In terms of limiting the actors and actresses available, sure. But personally, I often find that talented unknowns are better-suited to many roles than "name" actors or actresses, especially roles which come from a book. With a character from a book, having a famous actor portray them often causes a conflict with the image in your head. This happens to a lesser extent with an unknown actor, but they have greater freedom to embody the part without as many prior associations for the audience.

biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.

It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.

Most? Really? You don't find that most of our decency laws and television censorship at this point are widely seen as dated and somewhat archaic? My experience differs.

biccat wrote:If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).

Context matters. A naked person on the side of the road in a Northern clime would indeed be distracting and unusual.

biccat wrote:When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.

What? I agree with that last statement, but I can't grant your first or second premise at all. Neither that it always distracts (that depends on the viewer), nor that it's the intent of the director/author/artist to distract. Those are your personal internal feelings which do not (IMO) map to or match the outside world. I'm sure there are other people who agree with you, but I can assure you that nudity, in many artistic contexts (such as a show on HBO, or a classical Greek painting on a vase, or a Renaissance statue) is not inherently distracting, nor intended to be so by the artist.

biccat wrote:
Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.

Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.

It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).

If George Carlin is excepted, than you are conceding the point. It's not an inherent quality of nudity or profanity that they are offensive or distracting. It comes down to how they are used, and the overall quality of the artistic work.

I like boobs.

I also like this TV show, haven't read the books, but am really enjoying the complexity and depth of the plot and how realistic and interesting the characters are.

I get the feeling that avoiding spoilers is gonna be a major problem though.

**Bongo_clive**

Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?

Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series

**alarmingrick**

I'm ready for Theon to die.
In some manner that will happen to kill Geoffrey at the same time.

**Horst**

Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?

Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series

eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.

Though every character they omit / kill might have huge effects down the line. I think martin said that a few of the characters killed off so far have much bigger roles in the final 2 books, but I don't remember which characters (one of the dothraki I think).

But they can probably just use another character to fill in the role, and it will be fine. For example, they killed Rodrik instead of Benfred by Theon, because explaining everything about Benfred would have taken a long ass time. They shortened Jamie's escape plot singnificantly, but in the end it didn't matter, the result is the same.

I'm not sure where Arya/Tywin is going, but its probably going a similar place as in the books. I'm grateful for the little changes like this, it adds an air of randomness that I wouldn't have seen if they stuck strictly to the books.

**Bongo_clive**

Horst wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?

Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series

eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.

That's just stupid, and I can only assume you meant something else. Otherwise, I can just fill you in on what happened in the last book. I mean, why would you want to bother yourself with all this stuff that doesn't matter?

**Bakerofish**

In effect Martin is "cleaning up" his books. Given a second chance to write the books in a better more controlled way.

I like it. I can see why others would be bothered but I like how Im still left guessing even If Ive devoured the books.

**Hordini**

Bongo_clive wrote:
Horst wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?

Because we are now missing pretty large chunks of the books in the series

eh, its all driving towards the same thing, so it doesn't matter.

That's just stupid, and I can only assume you meant something else. Otherwise, I can just fill you in on what happened in the last book. I mean, why would you want to bother yourself with all this stuff that doesn't matter?

Because the TV show is a totally different medium and should stand (or fall) on its own merits, even if it has to diverge from the book slightly in places. I don't watch TV shows for the same reasons I read books, and you can do things in TV shows that you can't do in books, in the same way that there are things you can do in books that you can't in TV shows. How true a TV show or film is in following all the tiny details of a book, especially a series of books as ambitious as Martin's, doesn't really have any bearing on how good a TV show it actually is. Obviously, there is a limit, the main plot points should be the same and moving in the same direction, but so far it seems like the TV show has been doing an awesome job working within the limits and utilizing the advantages of their medium to tell a great story.

And I say all this as a hardcore fan of the books - I've been reading A Song of Ice and Fire before the HBO series was a twinkle in George R. R. Martin's eye. From what I've read, Martin is fine with the direction of the series. He's involved with the project (I believe he's writing at least one episode per season) and he's worked pretty extensively in television before, so he knows how things work. He's actually said that he prefers some of the character portrayals in the show over his own, particularly Osha.

Spoiler:

**d-usa**

It also helps with actors available down the line for characters that may not pop up again until 2-3 seasons later.

I would rather have a character be replaced by a new character that does the same function, then have a character be the same put replaced by a new actor.

**Experiment 626**

Horst wrote:
Bongo_clive wrote:Has anyone read anything from George Martin about his thoughts on the series now moving further away from the books?

I'm not sure where Arya/Tywin is going, but its probably going a similar place as in the books. I'm grateful for the little changes like this, it adds an air of randomness that I wouldn't have seen if they stuck strictly to the books.

I'm honestly really enjoying the change-up with Arya/Tywin's storyline in this season! It's saving time that would otherwise be wasted explaining a handfull of really minor characters, and it's making Arya's story more enjoyable considering that it's honestly pretty dull until her last couple of chapters in the books.

Same with Dany - her story is very backstabbing & overall non-action oriented until the House of the Undying. The little changes have made her story enjoyable to watch instead of her just sitting on a damn litter, getting shown the door by every nobleman in Qarth and Xaro professing his love for her at every turn.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes

1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story

2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L

**Ouze**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes

1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story

2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L

1.) They can still fit them in, although at this point it seems likely they wrote them out. But we'll see.

3.) Man, I have no idea.

**d-usa**

Could be that it is easier to have a smaller group escape than a larger group, and they might still meet up with them later on.

**Experiment 626**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes

1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story

2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L

I'm wondering if they won't bring the Reeds into play come season 3 myself. Keep in mind they added a total of 19 new roles this season! There's only so many actors you can add when you're trying to fit things to a small screan budget!

Dany's story in the book is pretty uneventful in terms of overall 'action' going on. I mean it really boils down to;
- The Red Waste killing off a bunch of her remaining Dothraki
- Camping out in the shattered city ruins they find before the Qartheen party arrives
- Getting refused repeatedly by every noble/wealthy group in Qarth while riding around on a litter with Xaro who professes his love for her ad nauseum!

Spoiler:

I think alot of the changes have been done simply to make Dany's story viable to watch! Sure it's a big deviation from the book, but seriously, would you really want to sit back and watch nothing but constant & often repetitive dialog for 4-5 episodes?!
I just wish they hadn't killed her Silver though.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:I've really been enjoying the show so far but 2 major gripes

1. where are Jojen and Meera Reed, from the books they seemed pretty important to drive Bran's story

2. what the hell are they doing with Dany? I mean it''s just so far from the books. :L

I'm wondering if they won't bring the Reeds into play come season 3 myself. Keep in mind they added a total of 19 new roles this season! There's only so many actors you can add when you're trying to fit things to a small screan budget!

Dany's story in the book is pretty uneventful in terms of overall 'action' going on. I mean it really boils down to;
- The Red Waste killing off a bunch of her remaining Dothraki
- Camping out in the shattered city ruins they find before the Qartheen party arrives
- Getting refused repeatedly by every noble/wealthy group in Qarth while riding around on a litter with Xaro who professes his love for her ad nauseum!

Spoiler:

- Going to the House of the Undying and getting the various prophecies, then watching Drogon go ape nuts!

Spoiler:

- The little assassination atempt as she & Joura are trying to find a ship to get them all out of Qarth, before meeting up with Whitebeard & Strong Belwas

I think alot of the changes have been done simply to make Dany's story viable to watch! Sure it's a big deviation from the book, but seriously, would you really want to sit back and watch nothing but constant & often repetitive dialog for 4-5 episodes?!
I just wish they hadn't killed her Silver though.

in fairness though all the rich men of qarth didn't get murdered in cold blood and Xaro didn't try to set himself up as king and they've killed off like half of her Khalasaar who are still alive in book 5 and Strong Belwas and The old one who I love need ot show up soon. Her story really peaks in book 3

**Mr Morden**

Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:

Spoiler:

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:

Spoiler:

I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.

I agree with all the points in the spoiler.

I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall

**sirlynchmob**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:

Spoiler:

I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.

I agree with all the points in the spoiler.

I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall

All things considered though, they really don't need the reeds, if they haven't been introduced yet they just might not make the cut. It can just as easily be the wildling girl whos name escapes me right now, who starts teaching bran about his 3rd eye.

**Hulksmash**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:Game of Thrones continues to be a good wtch for me - with some of the changes welcome:

Spoiler:

I am hoping Arya stays around Westros - I find her story in the books a bit dull.
Not sure about Danys story adjustments but then I was massively disapointed by her in the new novels - but then I was I was veyr underwhelmed by the new books :(
I was hoping the show might get her dragons growing quicker and /or getting to the the liberation of the Unsullied sooner.

I agree with all the points in the spoiler.

I suppose Bran could meet the Reeds on his way to the wall

All things considered though, they really don't need the reeds, if they haven't been introduced yet they just might not make the cut. It can just as easily be the wildling girl whos name escapes me right now, who starts teaching bran about his 3rd eye.

Don't read if you don't wanna know book stuff. Figured I'd put it out there

Spoiler: