Game of Thrones

[lillibet]

Jason and I finally watched the first episode of Game of Thrones last night, HBO's series based on the first book of George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire epic fantasy series.

I have read the first four books of the series--they're promising the fifth one soon, but they've been promising that for a while and, as Neil Gaiman famously said, George R.R. Martin is not my bitch, so I'll just believe it when I hold #5 in my paws. A woman I would otherwise call a friend gave me the first three and I foolishly assumed that it was a trilogy. It's a good series--the world is well-built and the plotting is intricate. Almost too intricate at times, but Martin has been quoted as saying that after writing for television for years he wanted enjoy the freedom of the novel and write something absolutely unfilmable.

HBO's decision to bring this work to television has been somewhat controversial. HBO's head honcho himself said that he's never been interested in the fantasy genre, but that he'd learned from the experience of True Blood that if you film a cult favorite with respect, giving it a reasonable budget and recruiting quality actors and creative staff, its fans will flock to you and bring their friends. I'm delighted when decision makers actually listen to their data (as opposed to all the ones who express surprise every single time adult women go to a movie) and I've been looking forward to seeing Game of Thrones since it was announced over a year ago.

Not all reviewers were as eager. In fact, this show produced more vitriol than I've seen in quite a while. Gina Bellafante at the New York Times wrote this sexist rant, accusing the creators of the show of being "cheaters" for daring to stray out of the "realistic" canon. And Troy Patterson titled his review--if you can dignify it with that title--"Quasi-Medieval, Dragon-Ridden Fantasy Crap" and then declared that to be a technical term. In both cases, the reviewers seemed deeply offended that anyone might enjoy watching such a thing, much less spend money to make it.

So what did I think of the first episode? It's a beautiful production, without shying away from the realities of people living close to their food sources in warrior culture. The acting is first rate, which is no surprise given the cast. Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister is the cream of the crop, but everyone's giving it their A game. Harry Lloyd, as Viserys, is a marvelously evil twit. My biggest question is Lena Headley as Cersei--she is a bit more sardonic and less innocently evil than I would have chosen for the role--but I'm willing to see how she plays it out.

My biggest question is whether I needed to see a dramatization of these books at all. In the books, much of the action is told from the childrens' perspective, while the show takes a more omniscient approach. This has several ripple effects. For one, characters that were extremely sympathetic from their own point of view become more obnoxious at a distance--this is particularly noticeable with Sansa (who is now more obviously a child, not just an overbearing elder sister) and Arya (who really is a little pest, even if she has a good heart). Secondly, the innocence of the child's perspective--where even objectively horrible events are no scarier than the boogey man--is lost to my own more adult horror at the things happening to them. This is not a pretty fantasy, where good battles evil and wins every time. And that can be hard to watch sometimes, especially when you know what's coming.

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

Planning to watch it tonight...

I think you've articulated my feeling about many book-to-movie/TV adaptations: could be good, could be bad, but do I need to see a film version? In this case, I'm not sure I do, but I'm curious and everyone I know is going to see it and talk about it... A lot of my wonderings about adaptations of things do stem from the fact that there are a lot of adaptations of books where the major striking thing about the book was the narrative voice -- put it in third person, and you've lost a major aspect of what made the book compelling. (This is why, after having put The Time Traveller's Wife into the Netflix queue, I took it out again; I don't think I do need to see that, even if it's not horrible, which it sounds like it isn't.)

There's also the issue of overwriting my visualizations with the movie version -- which is a funny thing for me to say, because my visual imagination is extremely weak and vague. Even so, I have the "no, he doesn't look like *that*" response to movie adaptations...And Song of Ice and Fire has a *lot* of visual description in it.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with overwriting, somehow--either I didn't have a strong sense of a character's appearance, or they get it wrong. Aragorn doesn't look like that and he never will, despite Viggo Mortensen's excellent performance in the role. When they very occasionally get something right, I'm so surprised that it's very noticeable. Anyway, it's just not something I expect.

I'll be interested to hear what you think of it. And yes, I'll probably keep watching, for much the same reasons.

[desireearmfeldt]

The other thing about moving to omniscient -- which you touch on with Sansa/Arya -- is you lose the opportunity to see various characters *both* from the inside of their head *and* from the viewpoint of one or more other characters. Which is a fun aspect of the books.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

Oh, ew, I should not have clicked on the sexist rant. He says "While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s..." in a way that just oozes "Well, really, I know there aren't any, but if I say *that* the little ladies will complain."

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Ginia Bellafante would be a woman, actually.

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

Which makes that comment even more annoying. Why is that?

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Because we would like to be able to count on our identity-mates as allies.

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. Maddening.

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

Of course. Maddening.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

Wow, failure on my part there. But, still, ew (and sigh). I apologize to your gender for assuming that she had to be one of yours. :)

[desireearmfeldt]

(Quick scan of the rant.)

I think this is proof that this is likely to be a TV show not really for viewing by people who haven't already read the books. There will surely be exceptions, but...I don't know, perhaps I should have added that to my list of reasons for wondering about why someone would turn this into a TV series. Because as long as you assume that watchers have some idea of what you're talking about, a lot of the potential problems are mitigated. Not having seen it yet, but having looked at pictures, I can imagine that if I wandered in cold I might well think "hm, cheesy fantasy with viking helmets and kinky sex, wtf?" One of the questions I asked (somewhat dubiously) when I heard about the adaptation was "I wonder how they're going to translate the darkness/grittiness/living-near-their-animals-medieval feel of the books into movie visuals?"

I find it bizarre that she objects to the sex on the grounds that it's pandering to female viewers, as opposed to the grounds that it's misogynistic or pandering to male viewers by exploiting women, which is the argument I would expect from a woman objecting to gratuitous sex in a TV show.

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

My co-worker sent me a link from the publisher about a month ago. They claim the book is coming out this July. That being said, I, too, will believe it when I see it.

I need to find someone with a Tivo so I can watch it once I have my life back....

There are reviewers, and there are reviewers

[babasyzygy.livejournal.com]

On the reviews: ok, we know that the self-proclaimed representatives from the eHipster press and the New York socialite audiences aren't into it. That's okay, they still have Jersey Shore, the Sex in the City movies, and the UK royal wedding.

But everything I have read from people familiar with the broad fantastic fiction visual genre has been a rave, including some from people like David Gerrold who don't normally like Fantasy, but are still very clued into the larger pool of fandom media. Gerrold specifically mentioned that he felt that it respected the audience's intelligence.

About half have been from people saying, "I have not read the books, but loved this." And that addresses what I have been struggling with: whether I would enjoy it more or not if I read the books first (which will not happen until Martin finishes the series: Gerrold's Chtorr books convinced me 20 years ago never again to start reading a closed-ended series before it is finished... Chtorr is still not finished). I have not read any negative reviews except from people who were pretty clear about their bias against anything with a fantasy motif.

I just need to know whether they pulled an Earthsea on it, or whether they respected the material and their audience. To me, that seems to have been answered conclusively by people who are more like me than they are like Sarah Palin.

I will probably give it a go - it sounds like good stuff, and it sounds like this is a place where I will not be disappointed with the books after watching the series (which has been the case for the Sookie Stackhouse books - the TV adaptation is much smarter and slyer than the rather uninspiring books), but nor will it diverge so much that I will confuse plot lines once I do start reading,

Re: There are reviewers, and there are reviewers

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I think the show is probably a good introduction to the more complex world of the books. At least, to judge from the first episode.

[labingi.livejournal.com]

Sounds like an interesting series, and you're right: that was a sexist rant.

[pekmez.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I had assumed it was a trilogy until I was in the last 100 pages or so of Book 3. It turned that particular plane trip quite a bit less satisfying. ;-)

[bookly.livejournal.com]

Would... would I be that woman? I forget.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

You would, you evil thing, you!