US: Game of Thrones Season 3 (watch-a-long thread {no spoilers})

The last two episodes moved things forward but as with others I find the convenient nature of Dany's army simply not bothering with any kind of security as laughable.

These are trained warriors and it would be absurd to presume they have only be trained to fight in formation. What is an army supposed to do while travelling, resting at night at a camp... be entirely unable to work out how to fight in anything but full on formation or secure the camp? There was an ongoing situation and rather than station hundreds of unsullied around the stadium there is a dozen or so.

95% of the Dany stuff this season, mostly lessons on how to rule, has been entirely pointless. The various relationships, the husband, reopening the fighting pits. Maybe I'm forgetting something but wasn't the whole argument that ex-slaves taught to fight still wanted to fight alongside anyone who wanted to win coin basically. Then somewhere along the way it became entirely fine for slave masters to bring slaves in to fight which she is entirely against?
 
George Hincapie said:
I have to say that I am now getting rather irritated with the amount of changes they are making from the books. I am not interested in what the screenwriters think, I want to see the book precisely transferred to the page with no changes or admissions. Go.
Click to expand...

The television show is an adaptation of the book, it is unrealistic to expect a book to adapt using the fidelity theory, as it is such a flawed way of adapting anything.

Absolutely ridiculous.
 
George Hincapie said:
So they managed to get something right with the finale then, we should be grateful for small mercies I suppose.

Ten episodes a season is pathetic though - they could increase it by at least another two episodes and explore more of the story.
Click to expand...

I've spent all year studying adaptation theory at University, I'm going to be doing it all year next year and will be specialising (fingers crossed) for my PhD.

You're talking nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'getting it right' because you're still comparing this to the book, this is a separate entity (your earlier comments are in line with fidelity theory which is rubbish, and does 'not work'). You need to separate the two.
 
I have to agree. The last episode was pretty poor to be honest and felt like a scramble to tidy up all the plot points to leave the series in a similar state to the books, at least in terms of how far along we are.

As others have pointed out, simply "filming the books" for television would be awful. Tons of superfluous stuff that you can get away with in a book that simply wouldn't work on television. Not to mention that the last book in particular was incredibly dull and poorly written.
 
Tummy said:
I've spent all year studying adaptation theory at University, I'm going to be doing it all year next year and will be specialising (fingers crossed) for my PhD.

You're talking nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'getting it right' because you're still comparing this to the book, this is a separate entity (your earlier comments are in line with fidelity theory which is rubbish, and does 'not work'). You need to separate the two.
Click to expand...

How is it seperate? Where is the story coming from if not from the books? If they want to make it up as they go along then they should have called it something else. People expect a faithful recreation of a book; if something has to be cut for time then so be it, but there's no need to change the events themselves.
 
Last edited:
George Hincapie said:
How is it seperate? Where is the story coming from if not from the books? If they want to make it up as they go along then they should have called it something else. People expect a faithful recreation of a book; if something has to be cut for time then so be it, but there's no need to change the events themselves.
Click to expand...

The television show is an adaptation of the book. The book works as a source text (or the hypo text) and the television series is the adaptation (hyper text), there are different ways of telling a story (influenced by medium as well as many other aspects) and this is the writers adaptation of that story.

People do not expect a 'faithful' recreation of the book; it is unrealistic and unattainable.

The books are the books, the television series is an adaptation of that story. Seriously if you want me to explain more I can do, I can even arrange for you to come to some seminar's or lectures if you really cannot get your head around what adaptation is.
 
Tummy said:
People do not expect a 'faithful' recreation of the book; it is unrealistic and unattainable.
Click to expand...

An example of a faithful recreation is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Incredibly true to the book. If it can be done for that, it can be done for everything else.

The books are the books, the television series is an adaptation of that story. Seriously if you want me to explain more I can do, I can even arrange for you to come to some seminar's or lectures if you really cannot get your head around what adaptation is.
Click to expand...

Your explanation has been most useful. Thank you.
 
George Hincapie said:
An example of a faithful recreation is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Incredibly true to the book. If it can be done for that, it can be done for everything else.



Your explanation has been most useful. Thank you.
Click to expand...

No, you're still thinking of them as a 'recreation' they're not really, they are another entity. They are an adaptation.

Would you be annoyed that Apocalypse Now is not a 'faithful' adaptation of the Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" novella?

The notion of 'faithful' adaptations is one of the first things addressed, there's no such thing. You treat them as separate sources.

Television (or film) is not the same medium as a book, so you cannot tell the same story in the same manner. There are different interpretations of aspects of the story, and the director or writer might imagine something different to you (not to mention budget having an influence and practicality) whereas this is not a problem in a book, imagination has no limits.

A Song of Ice and Fire are really enjoyable books (not the be all and end all of Fantasy in my opinion, but excellent none the less), but Game of Thrones is another way of telling the (the story being the hypo-text, 'original' story) story.
 
Tummy said:
No, you're still thinking of them as a 'recreation' they're not really, they are another entity. They are an adaptation.

Would you be annoyed that Apocalypse Now is not a 'faithful' adaptation of the Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" novella?

The notion of 'faithful' adaptations is one of the first things addressed, there's no such thing. You treat them as separate sources.

Television (or film) is not the same medium as a book, so you cannot tell the same story in the same manner. There are different interpretations of aspects of the story, and the director or writer might imagine something different to you (not to mention budget having an influence and practicality) whereas this is not a problem in a book, imagination has no limits.

A Song of Ice and Fire are really enjoyable books (not the be all and end all of Fantasy in my opinion, but excellent none the less), but Game of Thrones is another way of telling the (the story being the hypo-text, 'original' story) story.
Click to expand...

I really don't need you to try and correct my perception or expectation. I am happy with what I expect from a TV show or movie based on a novel; if that is technically 'wrong', so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom