Now, for those who don't know, I'm a HUGE fan of Television as a Medium, and while I have some misgivings about HBO, generally speaking I'm a big fan, because they certainly view TV show as an art from (the overuse of Tits aside). I'm also a Huge Fan of the Song of Ice and Fire series, because as a history major, I am very interested in any series which focuses on a more "realistic" approach to fantasy. Now, when I say realistic, I don't mean dark, because Song of Ice and Fire isn't actually that dark. A dark setting is where the world as setup is hopeless, Berserk is dark in that the actual world is literally built upon human suffering and exists to perpetuate the cycle. Diablo is Dark in that the world is nothing more than a no man's land between heaven and hell where both sides are on the verge of destruction. Forgotten Realms is Dark in that their are literal manifestations of Evil out to make humanity suffer. In those settings (and some Cohen Brothers movies), the world is actually designed for evil to win, in Warhammer, life actually does suck for the average person, and always will. Song of Ice and Fire reminds me more of well.....reading history, everybody is bad in someway, though only a few are actual sociopaths, everybody has at least some good qualities, and even when the Good guys loose, the Bad guys often don't fair much better. Honestly, reading this series I'm reminded of....well the actual War of the Roses, which it is clearly based upon. Or the Roman Civil Wars, or the Huns conquest of Germania, its brutal but its not absurdly so, also their isn't a sense that the world is designed this way and always will remain this way, its just a time period.
Anyways, getting off topic, my point is that I really like the Song of Ice and Fire view of fantasy, and honestly the whole time I read it I imagined it as a TV show, in fact it is written very much like an HBO TV Show. So I actually kinda dreaded the show because I was afraid the same thing would happen that happened with the LOTRS series, their were alot of little changes that bothered me mostly because i think I could have done a better job, but it was overall good. And had Sean Bean (Who always pictured as Theon Greyjoy). However, the show is really good. It has most of the good things from HBO's Rome, with some of the good things from the Sopranios thrown in. Well filmed, great props, good sets, very good camera work, and captures alot of the themes of the books without going overboard, I (as of episode 9) strongly recommend this. However, I wanted to talk about accuracy, their are alot of little changes in the show from the books, and friends of mine will be like "Wait, you don't mind the changes in Game of Thrones, but you get all upset about Lord of the Rings? Double Standard". So I want to use this as a way to go into a discussion of Good vs. Bad Changes. And by discussion, I mean like three paragraphs of me writing and everybody saying how great I am.....I love the internet.
Here is the thing, I really don't mind an adaptation changing the original work, in fact I expect it, different art mediums should tell a story differently. My problem with the Watchmovie is that it was too "accurate" and never really grew as a film. The Godfather book is crap, but the movie is wonderful. Hell, even movies like the Big Sleep are very different from the book, and while both the book and the movie are great, they are great in very different ways. My problem comes from unjustified change, or changes that add nothing to the story. In Fellowship of the Rings, I didn't mind Tom Bombidel not showing up, because while I liked him in the book, he would distract things. Nor did I mind the addition of the head Uruk-hai Lurtz, who I thought was very good. However, things like making Gimli a Comic relief, making the Elves show up at Helm's Deep, and all of Arwin's scenes, they were generally pointless beyond a marketing standpoint (We need more comedy, elves are cool/sexy, and we need a love drama). They didn't add anything the books didn't do better, the new themes they added were badly handled and many of them were handled better in the books. When an adaptation adds something, or puts a new perspective on the story, I'm all for it (I love the Full Metal Alchemist Anime after all). For example, in Game of Thrones the book, the main protagonist Ned Stark is attack by one of the Villians Jamie Lannister while Ned and his bodyguard are leaving a brothel (makes sense in context). Ned's horse is hurt and it falls down on him, crushing his leg. Jaime kills all of his bodyguards, and leaves him there, not wanting to kill a major lord. The point of this scene establishes four things 1) The Gritty realism of the scene, that instead of getting his leg hurt in a dramatic or heroic deed like fighting a bunch of people, his horse falls on him, which happened alot in real life and I know a few friends who get in horse accidents all the time 2) That they didnt' kill him because he was a major lord and were hoping to kill his men to humiliate him 3) He has a limp so when shit goes down later, he can't fight as well as he normally would. 4) the humilation of Ned feeling totally helpless and unable to aid his men as they are cut down around him. Now in the TV series, when he is attacked he actually gets to fight, wounding one of Jaime's men before fighting him in single combat. Part way through the fight, one of Jaime's random men hamstrings him in the leg from behind, causing the semi honorable Jaime to leave Ned alive in disgust. Now from a marketing standpoint, this scene achieves 1) We finally get to see Ned and Jaime fight, their abilities have been hinted at, but only now do we see them fight 2) Its dramatic 3) We don't need to train a fucking horse to do this, because that shit is expensive (plus the stunt double). The reasons from an artistic standpoint at first glance seem very superficial 1) It establishes a sense of randomness, by having a nameless guard take out the main character 2) It makes Jaime's attack on Ned seem even more out of control and stupid than it was in the books, only sparing Ned's life because of his own sense of honor 3) establishes Jaime's own sense of honor, as twisted as it is, he won't defeat a crippled man. Now this is essentially giving up themes of gritty realism and Ned's lack of control, which normally would be a cop out, except in a later scene when Jaime meets his father, his father berets him for being stupid attack in the first place, and to let Ned go. The incident sets up the clash between Jaime's sense of brash honor, and his father's ruthless practicality. Thus the scene had a point, they used in order to build up the drama for later characters. It justifies its existence. In fact, their are alot of little scenes in the show where the more two dimentional book characters (Cerci, Joffery, Robert, Twrin, Danny's elder Brother , ect) get scenes where they better explain their motivations while simultaneously filling the audience in to the background of the show. Which I think is very clever, honestly the show got me to care at least a little about Joffery, which the books never did (he is still a vile little prick of course, but hey). So......watch the show.....
Next up (Eventually), I'm reading Drowtales.....WTF is going on?
from
EE
