Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => General Discussion => Topic started by: eHalcyon on October 08, 2014, 09:56:30 pm
-
The Homage thread has had enough. Let's talk here?
It's not that it's in an alternate universe, it's that it's a different piece of entertainment/art. It's based on the same universe, and the story is the same in broad strokes, but it's purpose is not to be the books put on screen.
But isn't that exactly the purpose? Unless it's supposed to be a spin-off or sequel or something...
I don't know. To me, that's like saying "the purpose of Dominion Online is not to be the game put online".
(Tried to find a meme for that statement, but none seemed appropriate. Insanity Wolf, maybe?)
That's actually a great analogy. Real life dominion doesn't have point counters or veto mode, but the variant created for online play is still clearly based on it.
From everything I hear of Game of Thrones though, it's not so much "Almost Dominion, but with some online variants." It's more like "Dominion at the start of the game, but every time you buy a kingdom card you also gain a card from the nearest copy of Ascension, the Curse stack is replaced by a Euchre deck, and you win by taking more tricks than your opponents."
Interesting. Is this hyperbole? If they deviate so much, why? I understand that some concessions have to be made for film, but television doesn't suffer the same time constraints. There also has to be some change to accomodate the different medium. Shows tend to avoid excessive narration, especially from multiple characters, so they'd have to work a bit to convey what characters are thinking. And pacing would have to be adjusted to make individual episodes cohesive in theme and roughly chronological. But you make it sound like far more liberties are taken...
-
Oh no, it's not nearly that different. More like the difference between the newest iphone and the newest android? Sure, there are some things that don't work the same way, but the basic concepts are very much the same. Season one of the show followed the first book very closely, they've since started to diverge more, I think one big reason is that in the books so many characters have such boring phases in their arcs (literally just walking around for one book without anything happening) that they just have to add some twists because if they don't show someone for a season, no one is going to remember who that is and if they show them doing nothing for a season, people are going to be upset screen time was wasted on them, but I'd say the general spirit of the story in the show is more or less the same than it was in the books.
Of course, the show is now approaching the portion of the story that irritated many readers with it's lack of anything of interest happening, so I'm curious to see what the showrunners will do next.
Thanks for the insight! How close are they to the end of the most recent book? Have they announced what they plan to do then? I really hope they don't go the (sometimes) anime route of padding with endless filler or making up their own story. Granted, live action filler episodes would be hilarious.
-
The Homage thread has had enough. Let's talk here?
It's not that it's in an alternate universe, it's that it's a different piece of entertainment/art. It's based on the same universe, and the story is the same in broad strokes, but it's purpose is not to be the books put on screen.
But isn't that exactly the purpose? Unless it's supposed to be a spin-off or sequel or something...
I don't know. To me, that's like saying "the purpose of Dominion Online is not to be the game put online".
(Tried to find a meme for that statement, but none seemed appropriate. Insanity Wolf, maybe?)
That's actually a great analogy. Real life dominion doesn't have point counters or veto mode, but the variant created for online play is still clearly based on it.
From everything I hear of Game of Thrones though, it's not so much "Almost Dominion, but with some online variants." It's more like "Dominion at the start of the game, but every time you buy a kingdom card you also gain a card from the nearest copy of Ascension, the Curse stack is replaced by a Euchre deck, and you win by taking more tricks than your opponents."
Interesting. Is this hyperbole? If they deviate so much, why?
Certainly it's hyperbole, but I think even the most faithful TV/film adaptation is still not as close to the source material as the least faithful digital adaptation of a board game.
Oh no, it's not nearly that different. More like the difference between the newest iphone and the newest android? Sure, there are some things that don't work the same way, but the basic concepts are very much the same.
Man, do not try to use that line on an iOS or Android ultrafan...
-
The Homage thread has had enough. Let's talk here?
It's not that it's in an alternate universe, it's that it's a different piece of entertainment/art. It's based on the same universe, and the story is the same in broad strokes, but it's purpose is not to be the books put on screen.
But isn't that exactly the purpose? Unless it's supposed to be a spin-off or sequel or something...
I don't know. To me, that's like saying "the purpose of Dominion Online is not to be the game put online".
(Tried to find a meme for that statement, but none seemed appropriate. Insanity Wolf, maybe?)
That's actually a great analogy. Real life dominion doesn't have point counters or veto mode, but the variant created for online play is still clearly based on it.
From everything I hear of Game of Thrones though, it's not so much "Almost Dominion, but with some online variants." It's more like "Dominion at the start of the game, but every time you buy a kingdom card you also gain a card from the nearest copy of Ascension, the Curse stack is replaced by a Euchre deck, and you win by taking more tricks than your opponents."
Interesting. Is this hyperbole? If they deviate so much, why? I understand that some concessions have to be made for film, but television doesn't suffer the same time constraints. There also has to be some change to accomodate the different medium. Shows tend to avoid excessive narration, especially from multiple characters, so they'd have to work a bit to convey what characters are thinking. And pacing would have to be adjusted to make individual episodes cohesive in theme and roughly chronological. But you make it sound like far more liberties are taken...
I haven't read much fantasy, but of what I've read, ASOIAF easily has the most plots going at all times. Adapting LOTR to the screen required keeping one, two or three different stories going, and most of those were stagnant for periods of time. In the latest ASOAIF books there were 18 POV characters. Of course, some of them interact directly with each other, but there were still five or six completely different storylines in different locations running. That makes just transferring the plot from the books to the screen near impossible. One of the biggest complaint about the show I hear is that the 10 hours they have each season is not enough to cover all the plots.
-
Oh no, it's not nearly that different. More like the difference between the newest iphone and the newest android? Sure, there are some things that don't work the same way, but the basic concepts are very much the same. Season one of the show followed the first book very closely, they've since started to diverge more, I think one big reason is that in the books so many characters have such boring phases in their arcs (literally just walking around for one book without anything happening) that they just have to add some twists because if they don't show someone for a season, no one is going to remember who that is and if they show them doing nothing for a season, people are going to be upset screen time was wasted on them, but I'd say the general spirit of the story in the show is more or less the same than it was in the books.
Of course, the show is now approaching the portion of the story that irritated many readers with it's lack of anything of interest happening, so I'm curious to see what the showrunners will do next.
Thanks for the insight! How close are they to the end of the most recent book? Have they announced what they plan to do then? I really hope they don't go the (sometimes) anime route of padding with endless filler or making up their own story. Granted, live action filler episodes would be hilarious.
Depends on the character. They've sped up some story lines a lot, to the point that they are on the verge of surpassing the books, and others are very much behind, to the point of the character in question not even being introduced in the show yet, leaving the fans to guess whether they'll appear at all.
They definitely did go down that road a bit last season already. There weren't enough going on with one of the story lines but they wanted the character to have screen time because he/she'll be important later and the viewers need to see him/her, so they created some really pointless subplots for him/her. This will be a big problem for next season.
-
The Homage thread has had enough. Let's talk here?
It's not that it's in an alternate universe, it's that it's a different piece of entertainment/art. It's based on the same universe, and the story is the same in broad strokes, but it's purpose is not to be the books put on screen.
But isn't that exactly the purpose? Unless it's supposed to be a spin-off or sequel or something...
I don't know. To me, that's like saying "the purpose of Dominion Online is not to be the game put online".
(Tried to find a meme for that statement, but none seemed appropriate. Insanity Wolf, maybe?)
That's actually a great analogy. Real life dominion doesn't have point counters or veto mode, but the variant created for online play is still clearly based on it.
From everything I hear of Game of Thrones though, it's not so much "Almost Dominion, but with some online variants." It's more like "Dominion at the start of the game, but every time you buy a kingdom card you also gain a card from the nearest copy of Ascension, the Curse stack is replaced by a Euchre deck, and you win by taking more tricks than your opponents."
Interesting. Is this hyperbole? If they deviate so much, why?
Certainly it's hyperbole, but I think even the most faithful TV/film adaptation is still not as close to the source material as the least faithful digital adaptation of a board game.
Oh no, it's not nearly that different. More like the difference between the newest iphone and the newest android? Sure, there are some things that don't work the same way, but the basic concepts are very much the same.
Man, do not try to use that line on an iOS or Android ultrafan...
I mean, everything is relative. I'm of course talking in the context of adaptations. It's in the definition that they aren't the same. No one ever claimed they were trying to be.
Honestly, straight up acting all the scenes like they happened in the books? Ignoring how economically impossible it would be, I guess I'd watch because I'm a superfan, but man, it would get very, very, very boring. Of course there is still the debate of what and how much to change, and I guess the critique some people have would be that the adaptation isn't done well enough or that they've changed too much, but I think people for the most part don't put budget constraints nearly enough weight, and it's also important to remember the show isn't catering to the fans of the books, but for a broader audience that would not watch if they targeted the show to only those who've read the books. All in all, I think GOT has done a great job of hitting the sweet spot between pleasing fans and also attracting casual viewers. No wonder it's been such a hit.
-
I haven't read much fantasy, but of what I've read, ASOIAF easily has the most plots going at all times. Adapting LOTR to the screen required keeping one, two or three different stories going, and most of those were stagnant for periods of time. In the latest ASOAIF books there were 18 POV characters. Of course, some of them interact directly with each other, but there were still five or six completely different storylines in different locations running. That makes just transferring the plot from the books to the screen near impossible. One of the biggest complaint about the show I hear is that the 10 hours they have each season is not enough to cover all the plots.
So far, I've read the first book and I'm about a dozen chapters into the second (which is still pretty early in the book). So far, it feels like there are far fewer plot lines going on compared to Malazan Book of the Fallen. 18 POV characters doesn't seem that crazy to me. :P
To be fair though, Malazan is actually complete and spans 10 novels for the primary series, and a bunch more in other series or stand-alones in the same world. I haven't read all the books, though I've read all 10 in the main series. The size of the plot is such that the fifth book rewinds to before the first book in order to talk about events on a completely different continent, and it doesn't feature any characters from the previous books. Subsequent novels connect the threads.
Depends on the character. They've sped up some story lines a lot, to the point that they are on the verge of surpassing the books, and others are very much behind, to the point of the character in question not even being introduced in the show yet, leaving the fans to guess whether they'll appear at all.
They definitely did go down that road a bit last season already. There weren't enough going on with one of the story lines but they wanted the character to have screen time because he/she'll be important later and the viewers need to see him/her, so they created some really pointless subplots for him/her. This will be a big problem for next season.
Hmmm, that's dangerous. It can easily create plot holes and force showrunners to deviate even further from source material when (...if?) future novels get released. De-syncing different character arcs can also screw with sensitive timing in military movement. I understand why they'd do that, but still.
So since I've read just the first book so far, how far can I watch in the show without hitting spoilers? (I know I can find this online, but why not ask while I'm here...)
-
The first season is completely safe, but I would suggest reading the books first and watching the show after. After the first season the show starts to deviate from the books and doing both simultaneously might make you a little bit confused because some of the less important story lines are very different (and you might get mixed up on what's going on in the show and what's going on in the book).
-
Man, Game of Thrones has to deviate from the books. There is, like, literally no other way. The books are told from multiple PoV's and a lot of information takes place in characters inner monologues.
I question some changes, but of course if I hadn't read the books I doubt I'd think about these things. The show has been doing an amazing job.
-
Malazan Book of the Fallen is fantastic. An adaption would be awesome, but probably too grandiose an endeavor.
-
The Homage thread has had enough. Let's talk here?
It's not that it's in an alternate universe, it's that it's a different piece of entertainment/art. It's based on the same universe, and the story is the same in broad strokes, but it's purpose is not to be the books put on screen.
But isn't that exactly the purpose? Unless it's supposed to be a spin-off or sequel or something...
I don't know. To me, that's like saying "the purpose of Dominion Online is not to be the game put online".
(Tried to find a meme for that statement, but none seemed appropriate. Insanity Wolf, maybe?)
That's actually a great analogy. Real life dominion doesn't have point counters or veto mode, but the variant created for online play is still clearly based on it.
From everything I hear of Game of Thrones though, it's not so much "Almost Dominion, but with some online variants." It's more like "Dominion at the start of the game, but every time you buy a kingdom card you also gain a card from the nearest copy of Ascension, the Curse stack is replaced by a Euchre deck, and you win by taking more tricks than your opponents."
Interesting. Is this hyperbole? If they deviate so much, why?
Certainly it's hyperbole, but I think even the most faithful TV/film adaptation is still not as close to the source material as the least faithful digital adaptation of a board game.
Oh no, it's not nearly that different. More like the difference between the newest iphone and the newest android? Sure, there are some things that don't work the same way, but the basic concepts are very much the same.
Man, do not try to use that line on an iOS or Android ultrafan...
I have an iPod Touch and an Android phone. I honestly can't tell much difference between either OS.
-
I think the proper term is "tl;dr"
In any case, the thing film/TV goes through coming from book is much more liely to be infected with multiple opinions.
Book= writer + editor
Movie= book + reader + screenplay + producer + director + actors + physical limitations + cgi + editing + screening room + editing
-
eHalcyon :
- A Game of Thrones = season 1
- A Clash of Kings = season 2
- A Storm of Swords = seasons 3 and 4. Kinda.
It's starting to get dicier now as they have more and more included parts from future books, because A Feast for Crows and a Dance with Dragons are for the most part simultaneous , following different characters in the same time period.
As far as what they'll do once they catch up to the books, it's actually a great illustration of my point. They are in contat with Martin so they know what the endgame is (there will be 7 books total, so we're semi-close to it). Once they pass him, they'll get there (or maybe they'll choose an entirely different ending, who knows ?) in their own way. Because the TV show is not supposed to be the book put to screen, it's its own thing, and expecting it to be the book on screen is setting you up for disappointment.
-
I think the best example of "based on" a book series is True Blood. I've read all the books and watched maybe 4 seasons...and they are nothing alike.
Under the Dome is another "adaptation" that doesn't even try to be the book.
-
Walking Dead as well. And The Leftovers.. Hannibal in a way.. a number of shows are inspired from books but create their own story line, and really their own characters. I like that approach, actually.
-
Since so many of these (GoT, True Blood) are HBO adaptations, we should note that half the point (from the prodcuers' standpoint) of the HBO adaptations is to show as much female nudity as possible.
-
Since so many of these (GoT, True Blood) are HBO adaptations, we should note that half the point (from the prodcuers' standpoint) of the HBO adaptations is to show as much female nudity as possible.
That's a little excessive. I don't watch True Blood, and yeah obviously they love their nudity in GoT, but to be fair the source material also has a lot of it. GoT has more nudity than most HBO programs (eg The Leftovers) because of its universe.
-
But their overall approach to the show, which is present in these reviews and on their forums at all times, is that of the book reader who wants to be catered to.
I don't see anything wrong with that. I read the books and of course I want to be catered, too. I understand that the series is targeted at a wider audience than just book readers, but that doesn't stop me from personally prefering that the series would be made exactly the way I'd want it to be. And if other people have the same perspective as I do, hy shouldn't I write a review from that perspective.
This approach might (and in fact has) lead me to disappointment, but I won't pretend to myself that I would like something else best just because what I actually want is not going to happen.
-
Ok, what if I did a TV adaptation of the Lord of the Ring trilogy, and it was just the movies cut into 50 minutes episodes ?
That's basically what a "faithful" adaptation of ASoIaF would be like. It's not just that it isn't realistic because they want a broader audience and stuff, it simply wouldn't be interesting.
Simple example : I found the thing with the White Walkers this season (you know the one, the one that kind of answers an ongoing question the books haven't got to yet) to be thrilling, and I have a very hard time understanding what the people who hated it because it wasn't in the books want.
-
I don't like how some parts of the story were handled in the show. That doesn't require me to know how it could have been done better, it doesn't even require me to believe it could have been done better.
Maybe the thing I want isn't even possible, and well, bad luck for me then.
-
Ok, what if I did a TV adaptation of the Lord of the Ring trilogy, and it was just the movies cut into 50 minutes episodes ?
That's basically what a "faithful" adaptation of ASoIaF would be like. It's not just that it isn't realistic because they want a broader audience and stuff, it simply wouldn't be interesting.
Simple example : I found the thing with the White Walkers this season (you know the one, the one that kind of answers an ongoing question the books haven't got to yet) to be thrilling, and I have a very hard time understanding what the people who hated it because it wasn't in the books want.
I know.. I was so excited to look at my TV and think.... "I have no idea what is going to happen"
-
I'm not sure if the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (with Alan Rickman) is a good movie or not. I hated it, but I am not certain that it's because it's a bad movie or because I saw so much potential for humor in the movie that's in the book.
After all, one should dislike a comedy for being unfunny, not not funny enough.
But man, Hitchhiker's certainly was not funny enough.
-
Man, I thought the Hitchiker's movie was great. I loved every part of it. And I've read the books.
-
I remember loving it. I hadn't read the books at that point so I don't know how that would have influenced it.
@Watno : GoT is by no means a perfect show and there are definitely things to dislike about it, but any criticism that starts with "well in the books..." I find to be invalid by nature.
-
I remember loving it. I hadn't read the books at that point so I don't know how that would have influenced it.
@Watno : GoT is by no means a perfect show and there are definitely things to dislike about it, but any criticism that starts with "well in the books..." I find to be invalid by nature.
Unless They cut Lady Stonehart. Then I'll argue that I'll book changes are bad and they should feel bad and be dropped off a bridge no matter how bad that argument is.... I just like Lady Stonehart.
-
Funny, I actually hate her. Not the character (well, that too) but I feel like it severly undercuts the impactof the Red Wedding and is overall one resurrection too many. I'm curious to see where things go with Jaime and Brienne, and obviously there are some interesting things going on thematically with her, but past the initial shock, I really disliked the whole thing.
-
What's nice about Under the Dome is that Stephen King is involved in making the show, so it's still "his" thing. Plus, the book was fine, but it's not like King's stuff is high art. It's a great read, and that's good enough for me.
There is WAY more nudity/sex in True Blood than in the Sookie Stackhouse books. I mean, the books have a tinge of crap romance novel in it to keep the female readership loyal, but the HBO version is made to keep the guys watching the show with the female readers.
-
Funny, I actually hate her. Not the character (well, that too) but I feel like it severly undercuts the impactof the Red Wedding and is overall one resurrection too many. I'm curious to see where things go with Jaime and Brienne, and obviously there are some interesting things going on thematically with her, but past the initial shock, I really disliked the whole thing.
Me too. Of course, we can't know what GRRM has planned for her, but as of now I'm hopign they'll cut her. If she ends up being awesome somewhere down the road, I'll revisit this.