Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 10

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 923
· Newest Rebel: Jon Crockford

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
14% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
7% [7 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [14 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 97
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Books v Film, especially GOT
JustBrad
Travisina wrote:

Coser wrote:

Meegat, that's the TV series "Game of Thrones", unless I'm very much mistaken.

Have never seen it, but it's supposed to be very popular.


You're not mistaken, it is indeed Game of Thrones. I don't watch the TV series, partly because I don't get Sky Atlantic, but also because I love the books too much! The few eps I've seen, although top quality TV in their own right, make the story feel too 'abridged' for me. This often happens in book-to-screen adaptations - but that's a discussion for another thread!


And here that thread is....

I know what you mean. If Books are home cooked meals, Film (TV and Movies) are fast food. That said, I quite like the film version of Game of Thrones. I like seeing a good film and then reading the book. Having an actor in mind enriches the reading experience for me. I will often 'cast' a book with my favorite actors and actresses once I get a feel for the characters diction and cadence. Apparently I am not alone in this. Many years ago, I mentioned to a friend that they were making a stage production of Guards Guards, and that Paul Darrow had been cast as Vimes. My friend Mark (Doctor of Microbiology at USC, hey sci fi geeks are everywhere), replied, 'That's funny, because whenever I read Vimes, I've always imagined Paul Darrow."

That said, if the film is quite well done, aspects of it can be more enjoyable to me than the book. Back to GOT. I found the visual imagery of Danaerys Stormborn, rising for the ashes of Drogo's pyre, her dragons perched on her shoulders, to be far more compelling in film than in print. Just a few chapters earlier, George R R Martin had done such a masterful job of using words to paint the picture of her prophetic nightmares, that the printed word was far more moving and frightening than what they could put on film.
 
Travisina
Thank you for starting this thread!

I've seen a couple of early eps of GoT, and my first impressions (apart from searing jealousy of the editor - he's someone I used to know, in fact I'd been his assistant years ago at Granada!) were that they'd done reasonably well finding actors and locations that more or less looked the part. I say 'more or less' because the actor playing Tyrion (my fave character) is way too good looking, and the kids are all too old. Actually, so are the adults. But this is quasi- Middle Ages, and people had shorter life spans in those days, so can be excused on those grounds. But it did mean that the characters on screen, with a couple of exceptions, weren't the way I'd imagined them. Likewise some of the locations - the Eyrie in the book takes an entire chapter to ascend, and gave me vertigo dreams for days. When I saw it on screen, I thought: that's not very high!

Everything on screen seems to happen too quickly, the events tick past like a series of bullet points. I prefer the way the books have a whole chapter from the point of view of one person, getting right inside their thoughts and feelings - eg Arya's first chapter, which was reduced to a couple of lines on screen.

The visuals inside my head are better than they are on screen, but I completely understand the popularity of the series - however one comes to it, it's a fantastic story Cool
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
JustBrad
Yes, I was rather... taken aback to find out how old Danaerys was on her wedding night with Drogo, but then the description of their first tryst was far more emotional than what was filmed.

And yes, Tyrion is not nearly as attractive as Peter Dinklage (who is as attractive as Peter?), but Peter plays the role so well, I think we can forgive the casting director. In fact, every line I read for Tryion, I hear in my head in Peter's intonation, diction, and cadence. I think the same can be said for Tywin. Charles Dance makes him far more intriguing than the words on the page, but that's Charles Dance for you...

I would go 50/50 on what looks better on film than what I've imagined from reading the story. Same for the LOTR trilogy, but that's because of in each case, production has spared no expense in finding the perfect locations, and top notch acting talent.
 
Travisina
JustBrad wrote:

Yes, I was rather... taken aback to find out how old Danaerys was on her wedding night with Drogo, but then the description of their first tryst was far more emotional than what was filmed.


Yes, the book took its time, so to speak. Beautifully written, erotic and moving - and Danaerys eventually says 'Yes', which makes it a very different scene from the almost-rape of the screen version.

And yes, Tyrion is not nearly as attractive as Peter Dinklage (who is as attractive as Peter?), but Peter plays the role so well, I think we can forgive the casting director. In fact, every line I read for Tryion, I hear in my head in Peter's intonation, diction, and cadence.
.
I find Peter's voice rather weird, actually. Or rather, not his own voice, but the way he plays Tyrion with a plummy, public-school accent. Perhaps it's to emphasise that Tyrion is clever and well-educated, but it comes across as a bit odd to me.

I think the same can be said for Tywin. Charles Dance makes him far more intriguing than the words on the page, but that's Charles Dance for you...


I've not seen any of his episodes, so will reserve judgment on that! However, I've heard they've built up his relationship with Arya beyond what was in the books, which does sound interesting.

I would go 50/50 on what looks better on film than what I've imagined from reading the story. Same for the LOTR trilogy, but that's because of in each case, production has spared no expense in finding the perfect locations, and top notch acting talent.


That's a good comparison, and funnily enough when I first read LoTR, a friend and I spent happy hours debating who we would cast in our own movie version of it. In the end, I thought the movies turned out pretty well, but by then enough years had passed since reading the book so I wasn't quite as nitpicky as I am with GoT!
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
JustBrad
The Tywin / Arya scenes are epic, so much sub text. Tywin enjoys having someone with a brain to converse with, while I suspect Charles Dance, old warhorse that he is, enjoy's the scenes with a competent young actress. We have been most impressed with Charles Dance in everything we've seen. While I haven't read beyond the first book, I suspect they are adding scenes for Tywin just because they have Charles to pay him.

When I first saw the Xena and Hercules episodes filmed in New Zealand, I said to Paula, 'If they ever make a LOTR movie, that is where they must film it. NZ looks exactly like Tolkien described Middle Earth. Having read the Tolkien books at least five times in my life, it was a pleasant surprise to see Peter Jackson's work, and find so few things to quibble about.

I want to be clear that I don't prefer the movie version of any book, but GOT is so well done. (As was LOTR).
 
Angry Angel
I watched the first two series of GoT, and thought it was brilliant, but was reluctant to read the books because I thought it would get a bit confusing. However, Travisina convinced me, and I got sick of almost seeing spoilers, so I read them all. In the end I feel that the books and the series complement each other, I love all the detail and the points of view in the books, and I enjoy the visuals and the acting in the show. Most of all I love that there's a hardcore fantasy series on tv that's popular with people that would never read fantasy books, and that we can all share the world of ASOIAF together.
 
http://lucyravenscar.blogspot.com/
JustBrad
Angry Angel wrote:

Most of all I love that there's a hardcore fantasy series on tv that's popular with people that would never read fantasy books, and that we can all share the world of ASOIAF together.


Most mundanes don't think of it as fantasy, they think of it as "The Sopranos in Middle Earth"
 
Travisina
Angry Angel wrote:

Most of all I love that there's a hardcore fantasy series on tv that's popular with people that would never read fantasy books, and that we can all share the world of ASOIAF together.


I too love the fact that ASOIAF is fantasy for those people who claim they don't like the genre, just as Battlestar Galactica (rebooted) is SF for people who claim not to like SF. At heart, both series are outstanding dramas featuring fantastic multi-layered characters that just happen to be set in imaginary worlds.
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
rojkerr1
Interesting the differences and similarities between The Walking dead, graphic novels and tv show, characters retained that were originally killed off etc
 
sweevo
I think the most striking difference between a book and its cinematic counterpart is the 2004 anime adaptation of Howl's Moving Castle by Hayao Miyazaki, based on the Diana Wynne Jones novel. You can read my review about it on the link below (Post #11, Review #17).

http://www.blakes...read_id=49
 
Gauda Cheese
Travisina wrote:

Angry Angel wrote:

Most of all I love that there's a hardcore fantasy series on tv that's popular with people that would never read fantasy books, and that we can all share the world of ASOIAF together.


I too love the fact that ASOIAF is fantasy for those people who claim they don't like the genre, just as Battlestar Galactica (rebooted) is SF for people who claim not to like SF. At heart, both series are outstanding dramas featuring fantastic multi-layered characters that just happen to be set in imaginary worlds.


I liked a lot of BG, just hated all the religious stuff. I won't spoil anything, but yeah it bugged me a lot. BUT the shows themes of govenrment, terrorism, trust and torture etc etc were amazing and real SCI/Fi highlights I reckon.
http://stwco.word... Stuff and things written by me.

My podcast: http://GATM.buzzs...
 
Gauda Cheese
JustBrad wrote:

Yes, I was rather... taken aback to find out how old Danaerys was on her wedding night with Drogo, but then the description of their first tryst was far more emotional than what was filmed.

And yes, Tyrion is not nearly as attractive as Peter Dinklage (who is as attractive as Peter?), but Peter plays the role so well, I think we can forgive the casting director. In fact, every line I read for Tryion, I hear in my head in Peter's intonation, diction, and cadence. I think the same can be said for Tywin. Charles Dance makes him far more intriguing than the words on the page, but that's Charles Dance for you...

I would go 50/50 on what looks better on film than what I've imagined from reading the story. Same for the LOTR trilogy, but that's because of in each case, production has spared no expense in finding the perfect locations, and top notch acting talent.


Books can be more flexible with age than TV can and HBO isn't immune. Also in books no matter the gap between each release you can keep the same ages for the characters. As we all know young people age very very fast faster than a full grown adult. So recast the kid or just go with it.

Arya hasn't aged much in the books and Carl in TWD hasn't aged 4 years in the comic.

Also a book can world build in ways TV and film can't and so whilst the books have a medieval opinion on women and girls, a TV audience would not stand for it, medieval fantasy or not. Dani is what 14 when GOT starts?

Extreme violence though is allowed though.

I've had a few wines, hope it doesn't show too much.
http://stwco.word... Stuff and things written by me.

My podcast: http://GATM.buzzs...
 
Gauda Cheese
rojkerr1 wrote:

Interesting the differences and similarities between The Walking dead, graphic novels and tv show, characters retained that were originally killed off etc


Change for changes sake in my opinion. Also characters being radically different from the comics to the screen, Dale and Glen are relatively the same, but Andrea is dumber and no where near as kick butt. Rick is more ineffectual as opposed to being a proper leader he is in the comic.

Also one of the characters has too many hands!

Though in my ignorance whilst I have read the comic up to around issue 100ish.... I stopped with the TV show after season 2's finale.
http://stwco.word... Stuff and things written by me.

My podcast: http://GATM.buzzs...
 
President Solvite
Gauda Cheese wrote:

Change for changes sake in my opinion. Also characters being radically different from the comics to the screen, Dale and Glen are relatively the same, but Andrea is dumber and no where near as kick butt.


Not sure if this is correct with TWD.. Hobbit (pt2) certainly, Dawntreader perhaps. GOT, no firm opinion. They cater to an actor's talent and in many ways a TV screen can show certain aspects better than a graphic novel.

Gauda Cheese wrote:
Also one of the characters has too many hands!


Minor detail compared to some adaptations!! What about moving characters into totally different locations and creating people from scratch? Granted Reedus' Daryl comes into this catagory but it adds an extra dimension and indeed he is popular with all types of fans, even ones of the comic series.

Looking at the Hobbit (part 2) the whole last half hour more or less is a complete waste of time, with the Dwarves reigniting the dwarven forge etc... whilst more time could and should have been spent in Mirkwood and Laketown.. IE.. More character interaction than fancy (rather poor IMO) CGI effects. Still this mindless action seemed to impress mainly the non Tolkien fans, but I wish film/tv makers wouldn't cater for the lowest common denominator so often. You know sometimes the original author does a better job. In LOTR of course, visuals can be enhanced especially the battles of Pelannor Fields/Black Gate. Comparing the 2 Tolkien adaptations LOTR is superior. Not due to the fact of it being 3 books but the powers that be thinking it would be good to omit the funny bits of the Hobbit and include an excessive amount of padding with an inferior load of prose and characters. Films don't have to be 3 hours long to be good. I'd rather it be 90 minutes of neat flowing story per film. The Hobbit as written certainly could have delivered it.

Gauda Cheese wrote:

....Rick is more ineffectual as opposed to being a proper leader he is in the comic......

.... I stopped with the TV show after season 2's finale.


The assessment of Rick is also incorrect with regards the series, which I suppose is not surprising since it is in only from S3 that his leadership comes into proper effect. Only watching season 1 and 2 means the assessment of character development and evaluating their motives, capabilities and development is rather limited. In my opinion reading precis of the comic book narrative, I think the TWD TV series has handled some scenes a lot better and dare I say it in a more realistic manner. At least in my opinion.

In season 1 Rick is largely on his own, but when he does meet others still behaves as a policeman shepherding a group of 'civilians' (following a democratic consensus on the whole)

In season 2 Rick starts to assume the leadership mantle, clashes with Shane (who has mixed feelings on Shane's return - not surprisingly) This dynamic is still fluid as new groups are met and are merged with Rick defering to Hershel at times, since they are 'guests' on his farm. In the comic however this happens later in the story where Rick has developed more, which accounts potentially for his perceived weak leadership skills. But like I said in S3 onwards he develops into a more of a leader, but like anything this takes time, which in my view is a more realistic progression.

Unlike Trek, characters evolve in TWD and the characters in S3/4 (who still live! Pfft ) are radically different from S1/2.. Yes the TV series is different from the Comic, there's no escaping that, BUT where its is different from the Hobbit in my view is the replacement dialogue/scenes and characters equal or exceed on the whole the original text. Maybe it should be classed as a remake - no matter. It is a good new show which I enjoy, (not too many of those about these days!)
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
BradPaula
Travisina says: "I find Peter's voice rather weird, actually."

We were shocked to find out that Peter is actually an American from New Jersey. He's become my favorite American actor! -Paula
Zil: Oneness must resist the Host.
 
Angry Angel
BradPaula wrote:

Travisina says: "I find Peter's voice rather weird, actually."

We were shocked to find out that Peter is actually an American from New Jersey. He's become my favorite American actor! -Paula


I'm okay with his voice, it seems to suit the character. Is he the only US member of the cast? It's probably more weird that Jaime and Cersei have totally different accents!
 
http://lucyravenscar.blogspot.com/
Gauda Cheese
Can I just get a minor gripe out of the way first? I hate how the Show and everyone says "Based on the Graphic Novels by" The show is based on the comic book series! Its then collected into Trade Paper Backs! But I guess graphic novel sounds smarter that saying Comic book series (less childish)

Not sure if this is correct with TWD.. Hobbit (pt2) certainly, Dawntreader perhaps. GOT, no firm opinion. They cater to an actor's talent and in many ways a TV screen can show certain aspects better than a graphic novel.


I think a comic can go into just as much depth as an actor, depends how strong the story is and how good the artist is at capturing facial expressions. Charlie Adlard is very very adept at this.

Minor detail compared to some adaptations!! What about moving characters into totally different locations and creating people from scratch? Granted Reedus' Daryl comes into this catagory but it adds an extra dimension and indeed he is popular with all types of fans, even ones of the comic series.


I think it shows a lack of guts on the writers part. The comic book seems fearless. The series shy. Yes I'm serious.

The thing is yes Daryl is a good character and adds another layer, but was her needed? Not at all the comic has more than enough strong amazing characters that you can use.

Looking at the Hobbit (part 2) the whole last half hour more or less is a complete waste of time, with the Dwarves reigniting the dwarven forge etc... whilst more time could and should have been spent in Mirkwood and Laketown.. IE.. More character interaction than fancy (rather poor IMO) CGI effects. Still this mindless action seemed to impress mainly the non Tolkien fans, but I wish film/tv makers wouldn't cater for the lowest common denominator so often. You know sometimes the original author does a better job. In LOTR of course, visuals can be enhanced especially the battles of Pelannor Fields/Black Gate. Comparing the 2 Tolkien adaptations LOTR is superior. Not due to the fact of it being 3 books but the powers that be thinking it would be good to omit the funny bits of the Hobbit and include an excessive amount of padding with an inferior load of prose and characters. Films don't have to be 3 hours long to be good. I'd rather it be 90 minutes of neat flowing story per film. The Hobbit as written certainly could have delivered it.


On the Hobbit I can't comment. I see turning 200 pages into a trilogy is a shameless cash grab and won't give them any money. I remember thinking the LOTR trilogy was perfectly fine. I liked it as much as I'll ever like fantasy


The assessment of Rick is also incorrect with regards the series, which I suppose is not surprising since it is in only from S3 that his leadership comes into proper effect. Only watching season 1 and 2 means the assessment of character development and evaluating their motives, capabilities and development is rather limited. In my opinion reading precis of the comic book narrative, I think the TWD TV series has handled some scenes a lot better and dare I say it in a more realistic manner. At least in my opinion.


You've never read the comic and reading a summery of the events is not the same thing at all. Seems to me that it presents arguments that are..... "rather limited"

However I'll take a good story and character over "realism" anyday. Rick as presented in the comics is much more three dimensional, a leader from the start and why wouldn't he be? He was a Sheriff. There is less of an annoying hesitation to make a decision no matter how hard it is and it changes him a lot in the book. Rick in the show from what I saw is a wuss.

Unlike Trek, characters evolve in TWD and the characters in S3/4 (who still live! Pfft ) are radically different from S1/2.. Yes the TV series is different from the Comic, there's no escaping that, BUT where its is different from the Hobbit in my view is the replacement dialogue/scenes and characters equal or exceed on the whole the original text. Maybe it should be classed as a remake - no matter. It is a good new show which I enjoy, (not too many of those about these days!)


It can't exceed something you haven't experienced for your self.

I'm glad you enjoy it Smile

okay I have to ask, you say comics aren't for you and I'd love to know why?

However if you associate any kind of childish stigma to them I may just look for that red button Servalan uses in COA!
http://stwco.word... Stuff and things written by me.

My podcast: http://GATM.buzzs...
 
Coser
OK, so I have never read any of the books GoT is based on, and have not seen any of the TV series or movies. Not through any dislike of the series, but more of the fact that I don't have access to cable or Sky TV and have a real dislike for joining something part way through.

I did manage to pick up 4 of the books last night, only it's books 3-6, so I now have to get the first two before I start on the rest. I can take my time getting book 7 as I will still have a lot of reading to do before I get there, and I might be able to pick up the missing books tonight.

However, on the subject of books versus movies, that is something that depends, in my experience at least, on which you experienced first.

I have been a fan of some of the works of Alan Moore for a good many years now. I started seeing his work in the comic "2000AD", and later in a publication that was around for about two years in the early eighties called "Warrior". It was in this earstwhile publication that I first came across his serial "V for Vendetta". Many years later, I went to see the film adaptation of this serial, having purchased the graphic novel so I could read the entire story in the mean time.

The film came across as a big dissapointment to me. The story was completely different, the characters motivations were either different or ignored, the tone of the film was different. Now some of these differences I can understand, the way the graphic novel starts, the film would have been anti-climactic had it followed the same route, but some things were changed and that change was incomprehensible to me.

To illustrate this, let me describe the basics of the begining of the story. In the graphic novel, a young woman dressed in what could be described as a 'party dress' is putting on make-up in front of a mirror. It is London long after a nuclear war, the Thames barrier broke and a lot of London got flooded, but is almost back to normal now. (The war could have been around the time of the Cuban missile crisis.) This is Evey Hammond, and she works in a munitions factory for a pitance. She does not have enough money to live on, and so she has come to the desperate decision that she needs to do whatever it takes to earn more. On her first night out walking the streets, she spots a lone man and asks him if he wants to sleep with her, for money. After commenting that it was the clumsiest piece of propositioning he has ever seen, he reveals himself to be a "Fingerman" (Policeman) and she is surrounded by others from his squad. Evey pleads for them not to kill her, and the reply he gives is that they will do what they want to her and THEN they'll kill her. At this point the character "V" enters the picture and dispatches the squad, saving Evey who he then takes to the edge of the roof they were on and they look on as music comes from the tannoys, builds to a crechendo and at the right moment, the houses of Parliament are blown up, seconds later a rattle of fireworks and a number of glowing balls are sent up in a V formation.

The film version has Evey working for a TV station, and being made to go to the house of someone much higher up in the heirachy after curfew. She is caught out after curfew by some really dodgy looking characters who turn out to be police and they threaten to rape her, (But not to kill her!) she is saved by V, whose opening speach is a horrible mess of words starting with the letter 'V', and they go on to watch the destruction of the Old Bailey - a sub-plot and interlude in the original comic strip and graphic novel.

So in the original material, the punishment for being a prostitute was rape, and death, carried out by clean-shaven, tidy men. A punishment that is completely over exaggerated when compared to the crime, but is completely endorsed by society and the government, showing both to be scared and corrupt.

The film version washes this message out by allowing the viewer to believe that this may be a group of 'bad apples' using anti-terrorism laws to their own advantage and turning Evey from complete victim to possible terrorist.

I can, however, understand the decision to save the Houses of Parliament for the end of the film. Even though in the original, 'V' 's funeral train explodes under 10 Downing Street, that would still be considered an anti-climax when compared to blowing up the Houses of Parliament.

When it came to Alan Moore's other well known property, the "Watchmen", I was able to work it the other way round and saw the film before reading the original material in a graphic novel. It seemed to me that this film was truer to the original material, even though Alan Moore once again had his name removed from the credits, and the changes that were made, I seemed more comfortable with. The film changed the plot device from invading aliens to Dr. Manhattan's energy, and I feel that gave an edgier feel to the whole thing and, as much as is possible in a 'superhero' movie, grounded it more in reality.

So I think that a lot of what you perceive to be the best version depends a lot on which you experienced first.

However.

I read the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" books first, then saw the TV show, then experienced some of the original radio plays, then saw the movie. But if I was to put them in order of preference I would watch the TV series more often than read the books, then listen to the radio plays, then if I was forced, I'd watch the film. So obviously the TV series had a bigger influence on me than the books did, possibly because of the animated entries of the book itself.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope you get what I am saying.
"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes…then all of this…all of this…was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." Commander sinclair, Babylon 5.
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 0.55 seconds
9,797,141 unique visits since 8th January 2014