View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 6:45 am



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ] 
Episode 227: The Dragon Demands (restart) 
Author Message
house micro-woody lord

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:58 pm
Posts: 19
I just got an e-mail from Amin and an earlier version of this thread led to a lot of vitriolic disagreement which really didn't fit with decorum. The complaints were driving the discourse and getting too personal. I hope for a "do-over". Sitting down thinking of how to approach it better, I hoped it would be better to start a new thread with a little "manifesto" carefully worded, of what I was trying to say in the podcast. I don't expect everyone to agree, but just so I don't get misquoted. Anything I say here, please criticize, I stand by it:

Let's try this again - we're all smart enough to do this:

Episode 227: The Dragon Demands:

When I actually sat down to listen through the Blu-ray commentaries after Season 6, I realized that every time Benioff and Weiss ever changed anything - with total consistency - they attribute it to "we wanted to show off the actor" rather than in terms of the fictional characters.

For example, they re-wrote Dorne to revolve around Ellaria because, bluntly, "We like Indira Varma and reconceived the role to show off her talents".

Not only that, but they do not even comprehend the TV show in fictional terms, but whether an actor is having a big emotive performance. And they also state they are actively trying to make scenes with no dialogue, just showing off the actors emoting very hard. Now I say "emoting" because if the actor doesn't even know WHY their character is having a major breakdown...like the Stannis actor...then they're just emoting on cue.

I realized this going in reverse from the positive to the negative. In terms of "positive" scenes they think - by which I mean, they've stated - that they're being "strong" when the actor is giving a "strong" performance. Emoting "sterness" or "strength". Thus Jon Snow at the Battle of the Bastards is "strong" even though he doesn't affect the plot much. Sansa is "strong" for quote "defeating" Ramsay when she actually did nothing, on paper, to achieve that goal. It's just setting up the actress emoting "strong". Falling into old tropes of the "Strong Female Character" who emotes power and toughness but actually doesn't have a very big role.

So once you realize "they perceive the actor emoting a stern face as the character being strong"....it isn't as big of a jump to comprehend that they perceive the characters as "strong" even when they're, paradoxically, experiencing negative things. Such as torture. And I'm sorry if I was confusing before: I'm not "reading in" this....I was baffled why, in their own commentary, they say things like "look how Strong Stannis is being"...in a scene where his army is being destroyed. "Look how Strong Theon is being" when he's being tortured or crying helplessly. Or "look how Strong Sansa is" in this rape scene..."look at what a Player she is". Or even, "Theon and Sansa are both Strong Players in Season 5".

So with these cited quotes, trying to reconcile what seems to be a break with the reality we're seeing on screen.....I realized that there reached a point where they're just describing the actors. "Strong" and "player" have become generic synonyms for them which have nothing to do with Narrative Agency.

In turn, they're willing to totally re-write entire storylines, purely to show off actors they like - and their form of "showing them off", ironically, is just "cry really hard on cue with no dialogue", often with non-existent plot logic (so they're not really "acting" if there's no reason for the character to be doing that). Dorne, for example, was a logistical nightmare, but they shoved it in to show off Varma. Other things like Jon's battle in Season 6, Stannis's army being defeated, the Sansa rape, etc. had nothing to do with "slimming down the narrative" or "condensing an unwieldy plot"....there's a point where Cogman flat out insists, "we did this to set up these great performances, THESE faces!" rather than attempting to frame the change in terms of logistics, story condensation, or plot logic.

So how did I get the idea that "they're just making changes to pander the actors?"....well, the rambling 12 minute speech where Cogman stated this.

Now I've said "awards baiting" but it's worse than that: they're not sitting around self-consciously trying to trick the Emmy awards into giving Sophie Turner an Emmy for a rape scene. It doesn't fit their pattern: this is also why they changed a lot of MINOR characters who couldn't possibly compete for major awards: Ros, Olly, Shae, Missandei/Grey Worm, etc. They just honestly think this is what "strong drama" is: showing off emotive faces on actors they like. They remark on that time and again in the commentaries: "wow, these *faces*!"

Reviewing their own comments on their work, I came to the conclusion that Benioff and Weiss were drastically unqualified from the start. I know this because of the video interviews in which they admit they had zero prior television experience, no knowledge of even basic production processes, and BOAST about how they tricked GRRM into hiring them, by pretending that they actually did know. That isn't my interpretation, Benioff stated that. I have a clip of that.

Cross-reference this with the...numerous horror stories that leaked out from directors about how Benioff & Weiss didn't really understand basic production deadlines: frequently filming changed subplots on the fly, well past the "official" deadline for writing to finish and filming to begin. I.e. Cogman stated: the Talisa change was made *during filming*, after the writing phase was over. How typical is that in major prestige drama production? I don't know. It doesn't sound normal - if someone wants to contest that, please cite an example of what other show did that. Similarly, Season 5 Dorne felt like a rushed, last minute idea...because it was a rushed, last-minute idea. As was the big battle in Season 6. All of these accounts of them setting ridiculously unrealistic production goals that their production staff struggled with them over.

Now some were insulted that I made a comparison of Benioff and Weiss to "serial killers" -- I fear that got garbled in the podcast and I want to make what I said clear: I just finished watching the FBI profiler TV show "Mindhunter", and there's this point in an early episode where they're giving a lecture to patrol officers about serial killers. The cops just keep bluntly insisting "they're insane". And the profiler guy, Ford, is trying to explain to them "Just because he's 'insane' doesn't mean his actions are totally 'random'. He has internal reasons for doing what he does, they're just different from our reasons." I do not compare Benioff & Weiss to "serial killers" (ack). I was trying to address other critics of Benioff & Weiss - I mean people who outright hate them, like Elio & Linda - that they're NOT making "random" decisions, but have differing reasons from our own. And if you want to find out "why did they do this", you have to understand them, not impose your own subjective meanings onto it. And I brought up this comparison simply because it's been a trending meme for some time that "Creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen", a quote by Benioff. I used to think he was lying when he said that, bluffing his way out of a question...now I think he was honest, he was just literally describing how "impulsive" people think. The comparison I used in the podcast was "if you asked Joffrey why he killed Ned, he'd say 'because I felt like it' - and you shouldn't doubt his sincerity. He doesn't think out the repercussions of his actions."

Thus it's not that I "disagree" with Benioff and Weiss's artistic choices...but that I came to the horrifying realization, to me, that they don't know what artistic choices ARE. They're not making a very divergent interpretation of the source material, they're just impulsively showing off actors they like. Showing them off emoting faces with no dialogue.


______________________________________________________________________

I stand by that conclusion of "why did they change things":

A - They're unqualified, faked their way into running the show, and purely from a production standpoint, don't know the basics about running a TV show. This explains storylines like Dorne and others that got sloppy.

B - Sort of related to the first point, on a story level, there is no "story", no Watsonian fictional universe. Hardly even a Doylist one. They're just showing off the actors impulsively - emphasis on impulsively.


I think there are several points we can differ on. I can think of four:

1 - Those who feel I haven't provided sufficient evidence that this is the case - either that Benioff & Weiss are unqualified in basic production and time management, or, that they made huge decisions like "change Stannis" or "change Sansa" based purely on actor favoritism. I argue for an evidence-based approach to evaluating all of this. If you concede that hypotheticaly I COULD prove this is the case, but haven't provided sufficient information, I understand and sympathize. That...is the central question, isn't it? "Okay, you claim Benioff & Weiss are doing such and such - can you cite sufficient evidence?"

2 - Those who argue that art can't be interpreted from only one dogmatic perspective. I can understand that for "art", but I'm not investigating it as "art" but as...history/journalism. A basic question like "Why was production on Dorne so last minute? Why is the basic visual editing so sloppy"? Well, I feel that can be answered in one way: "Benioff and Weiss ran out of time" (for one reason or another - and I argue, due to bad time management skills).

3 - Those who argue that I shouldn't be turning this into a personal attack on Benioff and Weiss themselves, but on their works. I genuinely want to understand this more because it is baffling to me; from a point of cool detatchment, I'm not posting this angry: how do you separate the creator from his decisions? What is the difference between "TV-Sansa was not written well by Benioff" and "Benioff did not write TV-Sansa well"?

And...possibly a sub-point: I've concluded that Benioff and Weiss are so offensive, on a professional level as well as their public behavior (their contempt for questioners, lack of open dialogue, public drunkeness, misogynistic behavior, etc.) that this goes beyond merely "disagreeing with a showrunner we don't like" but "something unusual happened and we need to expose it". And if the argument is "watch another show"....well, what if I wanted to watch an adaptation of Atwood's "Oryx and Crake"? HBO officially passed on an adaptation of that, in part because they picked up "Confederate" instead.

Yes, I care enough about doing the Game of Thrones prequels "right" that I don't want these men attached. And by "right" I mean "with respect" - I might not agree with the interpretation decisions that professional producers make, but they're still making "interpretive decisions", not just "showing off the actors we like with no regard to the story".

But again: how can I separate a criticism of Benioff, Weiss, and Cogman's works...ongoing works...from a personal criticism of them? I'm criticizing their skill level and judgement capacity.

I DO want to avoid making attacks on their..."unrelated personal lives". But Benioff's behavior at his own public panels about the TV show are by definition no longer "private" (though I do strongly discourage private muck-racking).

The level of vitriol I've fallen to at times regarding them has been counter-productive; though I hope you keep an open mind if you aren't fully aware of all they've done.

4 - Why do I care this much about a TV show? Well...that argument is facile. It could be said of any "art". By the same logic, why does someone else care so much about "art" that they would argue with me about whether it's interpretation can be subjective of objective? Why...why do women or minorities argue for more inclusiveness in artistic representation? Knowing they stand little chance of winning?

Thus, things I want to discuss:

1 - Do you feel I have provided insufficient evidence, either that Benioff and Weiss are doing this - or, that what they're doing is not normal?

2 - How would you separate a criticism of Benioff and Weiss themselves from a criticism of their decisions? ...example: "Benioff and Weiss really messed up the Robb/Talisa romance, therefore I think they should no longer be showrunners" (simplified of course). IS THERE, conceptually, a point at which an adaptation can have its producers removed? Comic books shift producers all the time.

I'm surprised by the "crisis of unlike mentalities" I encountered in the other thread...not so much by those disagreeing with my evidence but disagreeing with how to proceed from it.

I didn't come here to be acrimonious, but the other thread felt like I was being attacked in YouTube comments (where I'm used to fighting off the online trolls). Yes, I haven't been in these forums before but I wasn't trying to escalate.

It probably also doesn't help that I recorded the podcast from midnight to 2 AM my time due to time differences, and as the night got later I got less restrained :? (ack)

I was very confused and since I last posted two days ago, just spent a long time staring at the screen and saying "this isn't proceeding how I wanted to at all". I want to be more productive here.


Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:29 pm
Profile
house micro-woody lord

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:58 pm
Posts: 19
Quote:
Posted by Valkyrist:

Yeah, I was very mixed about this episode. At the beginning, Dragon Demands seemed to argue that there was only one valid way of reviewing a piece of media, and it was through measuring the media against the stated claims of the creator, and that any interpretive/formalist/cultural critique coming out of "English major" reviewers was not only wrong, but symptomatic of the system's overall corruption; I vehemently disagree with the whole "objective review" position championed by a lot of geeks

Having said all that, I did find the podcast riveting, for good and bad reasons - I admire Dragon's hard work and articulation, just not his dogmatism.


I disagree philosophically: I think that through researched evidence we can eventually determine why Benioff and Weiss made certain changes. I think I have sufficient evidence. I don't think I can separate the creator's stated claims from an analysis of their work. My history training says that context is everything - it's not something I can choose to ignore even if I want to.


Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:43 pm
Profile
house micro-woody lord

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:58 pm
Posts: 19
Quote:
Posted by Davidhhh:
If you think that those of us watching and enjoying the show are all show apologists...


What? No, no - I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. Speaking in a hurry it's hard to rattle off all the gradations between "people still watching who enjoy parts but criticize others" up to "people who adamantly insist 100% of everything was great, and even defend things such as TV-Dorne as 'by definition good because D&D made them'...". I'm NOT calling you a show apologist. There's...there's some really rabid pro-TV fans out there in the comments sections of the internet.


Last edited by The Dragon Demands on Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:03 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 4503
Location: Starfall, Quebec
To clarify, I closed the first thread as it was getting a bit heated and personal. I emailed Dragon a copy of my post in that thread that was explaining the nature of the forums and the decorum required for posting here.

Dragon requested a chance to convey what he meant to say and continue the discussion with anyone still interested. He's free to do so as is anyone else who is still interested: I didn't intend to end all discussion for those interested, just give it a pause for tensions to cool down and for my post to be read.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing the TV show on the forums and I think many forumers are at that point too. Nor am I convinced that further discussion will be productive. But as long as it is civil, that is what matters.

_________________
Lord of Kingsgrave, Justice of the Supreme Court of Westeros, and Hand of the Queen
Founder of Bastards of Kingsgrave and Vassals of Kingsgrave


Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:26 pm
Profile WWW
☑ ☑ ☑ guest host: triple gold club™
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:11 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Jersey
So I got on this crazy train late. I had to go to a conference in DC, and had to take a 3 am Amtrak train to get back home. A lot of people on this forum are allergic to your, uh, style. I personally watch History Channel programming for fun, so your videos are actually kinda in my wheelhouse, when my mood swings that way. So one of your videos (the Stannis one maybe?) did amuse me a bit during that train ride, though I hope you'll understand that I fell asleep halfway through.

I think the main problem many of us here have with you is not necessarily with the individual points you want to make regarding the show, the showrunners, whatever, but rather how you are packaging those points and delivering them. As in, you only speak in one-sided screeds, and doesn't seem willing to engage in any sort of discussion. For example, you treated the ASOIAF podcast as another one of your Youtube videos. You did not give the hosts any chance to actually say what they think about any of your points; whenever any one of them tried to do so, you immediately talked over them and continued on what you want to say. You could only be stopped by your own Skype/internet provider fading your voice out, and you often don't even allow the hosts enough time to make sure your audio recovers before you start going off again. In such a situation, it is impossible to have "discussions." We can absorb your points, and discuss among ourselves their merits or demerits. But we can't really "discuss" anything with you, when you are clearly not really that interested in listening to what other people think. I am sure you have lots of followers who say you are right, because they found some (or all!) of your points affirming their own views. The internet is great at creating echo chambers! But if you are actually aiming to convince people who do not always agree with you, your, uh, combative means of argumentation is not doing you any favors.


Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:21 am
Profile
♜ vassals of kingsgrave curator ♖
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:59 pm
Posts: 2349
Location: Geelong, Australia
Hey Dragon. I appreciate you taking the time to write down a more organised and thoughtful mission statement. It clears up some misconceptions; namely, that you are chiefly concerned with the show as a production (rather than a text) and how it will go on to influence future productions – both as a model for high-budget serialised television and for future D&D projects. However, in my opinion, your thesis still relies on too many assumptions which have not been adequately defined or defended.

With regard to your questions:

The Dragon Demands wrote:
1 - Do you feel I have provided insufficient evidence, either that Benioff and Weiss are doing this - or, that what they're doing is not normal?

You’ll need to define your terms better and provide comparative examples. That is, you need to make the case for what constitutes a "normal" television production and demonstrate how GOT is "abnormal". If you’re arguing that GOT is abnormal because the showrunners have enlarged the roles of certain characters because they were impressed with the actors, or because they made script and location changes at short notice, then you will need to show how TV productions of similar scale do not do this. Examples to compare GOT might include Rome, Vikings, and The Tudors.

Next, your arguments rely primarily on DVD commentaries, but you need to argue why this is a reliable source for the author’s intent. For example, why are they more reliable than pitch summaries or script annotations? Many would consider DVD commentaries supplementary promotional material. Others would argue that a DVD commentary contains not so much the author’s intentions, but the author responding to feedback and criticism of their work (since it is often recorded 6+ months after the fact); that in order for a statement to be a true expression of the author’s intent, it would need to be included with the release of the product or episode. In this sense, the post-screening featurettes or interviews would be closer to what you are advocating. But again, can they be trusted as author’s intent or are they merely promotional material? An obvious shortcoming of commentaries is that creators are never going to be allowed to disparage the actors or the production studio on media released by the studio. So certain decisions which are unforgiveable to you, may have been forced upon them and paved over with a shoddy justification. We'll never know, which is why having "author's intent" as the only arrow in your quiver is insufficent for TV criticism.

Another thing you need to define is what you mean by "adaptation". Much of your complaints stems from the fact that D&D have, in your opinion, incorrectly adapted the story and characters. But you do not make a case for why minor (or major) alterations aren’t permitted or should be considered abnormal. For example, you would need to compare GOT to similar-sized TV adaptations—such as The Walking Dead, Dexter, True Blood, or Outlander—and show how those productions have remained faithful to their source material. You claim that LOTR is a good adaptation, despite the fact that the personalities and motivations of some characters (such as Faramir, Gimli and Aragorn) are radically changed from page to screen. You need to address these contradictions.

This will be a difficult task since, in my opinion, art is subjective. Just because you interpret a character one way, it doesn’t mean the showrunner's or viewer's alternate interpretations are automatically wrong. However, where I think your approach is strong, is when you demonstrate the showrunners' contradicting views of their own characters; for example, when they describe a character as having one motivation and then reversing this motivation later, or the obstuse way they ascribe "agency" or justify certain gratitous scenes. But keep in mind, critics have been pointing out these problems for years now.

The Dragon Demands wrote:
A - They're unqualified, faked their way into running the show, and purely from a production standpoint, don't know the basics about running a TV show. This explains storylines like Dorne and others that got sloppy.

The purpose and substance of this statement needs to be much better justified. Benioff wrote a series of successful novels and screenplays, he successfully pitched the project to the production studio and the author, and produced a pilot which was then picked up for a series. Where exactly is the con in this scenario? Moreover, he then went on the deliver the product he was contracted to produce and developed it into one of the most commercially and critically successful shows of all time. What other qualifications do you need to be a showrunner? I understand that you hated the show and you are not using commercial or critical success as the rubric of a good adaptation, but it is the rubric that every production and distribution company in the entertainment industry uses. Telling a HBO executive that they should fire D&D because you have a quote from a DVD commentary proving they are bad at time management is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is.

The Dragon Demands wrote:
B - Sort of related to the first point, on a story level, there is no "story", no Watsonian fictional universe. Hardly even a Doylist one. They're just showing off the actors impulsively - emphasis on impulsively.

You need to define what you mean by "story" - do you mean a narrative structure, character arcs, worldbuilding, or the combination these things. You need to delineate how a story functions in a television series, which is by nature open-ended, compared to a film or a novel, which are closed. One could argue that the first season of GOT does tell a complete story (e.g. Ned and Robert’s demise, the rise of a Jon and Dany, etc.), and tells it successfully. You admit that you were relatively content with the series up until season 5. Are you arguing that the failure of later seasons undoes the success of the first season? What if the show had been cancelled at the end of the first season? Would it then have been a success?

The Dragon Demands wrote:
2 - How would you separate a criticism of Benioff and Weiss themselves from a criticism of their decisions? ...example: "Benioff and Weiss really messed up the Robb/Talisa romance, therefore I think they should no longer be showrunners" (simplified of course). IS THERE, conceptually, a point at which an adaptation can have its producers removed? Comic books shift producers all the time.

Who said you can’t criticise D&D’s decisions? People weren’t taking issue with that, they were taking issue with ad homin statements such as calling them drug-addicts and misogynists and serial killers. Like the whole con-artist line of argument, it’s hyperbolic and slanderous, and distracts from your more compelling points.

Hope that helps. I do have one last question though - had you read ASOIAF before the show? Because I hadn't, and even though I'm dissapointed with where it's ended up, I'll always love it for introducing me to the books and the fandom, and for filling that fandom with so many brilliant, passionate people.

_________________
https://Valkyrist.wordpress.com/


Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:55 am
Profile WWW
★wardens of the woody★

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 4647
After hearing the views on a podcast, the first set of comments on the public page, the initial thread here, and now another one, this discussion is beyond me in terms of the time I'm willing to invest. This is a book first group, most peoplewill take or leave the show as they prefer, and the level of energy and detail here, is just too much.

In addition, I think it's kind of ironic that the first thread was closed down as getting to personal - presumably in its criticism of TDD, when he doesn't accord the same courtesy to Benioff and Weiss.

To TDD - I think the tone of your long post just added to my initial impression. All you really care is about expressing your views. You continually refer to what YOU need in terms of responses or clarifications. You make little attempt to genuinely engage with why your initial posts were off-putting.

"The level of vitriol I've fallen to at times regarding them has been counter-productive; though I hope you keep an open mind if you aren't fully aware of all they've done."

Really? Is the only reason you regret your vitriol because it's counter-productive to achieving your aim to direct our discussion? Not because it's just discourteous and uncivil and bullying and threatening of itself? This isn't behaviour we tolerate from any other participants in this group so why should you be an exception. And no - the it was late - excuse doesn't wash. If you commit to being on a podcast you are responsible for your condition on it.

"I'm surprised by the "crisis of unlike mentalities" I encountered in the other thread...not so much by those disagreeing with my evidence but disagreeing with how to proceed from it."

The fact that you even give it a facetious name and put it in quotes suggests that you have no respect for the very real and well thought out mode of discussion on these boards. Again, perhaps have the respect to listen to some of our casts and judging the situation before bounding in and demanding a discussion on your terms.

TL:DR you just don't get it and no amount of restating views is going to be productive, but bravo Valkyrist for having the energy to engage.


Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:46 am
Profile
house blackwoody lord
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Aberdeenshire scotland
Quote:
for them to be personally responsible for the show in its entirety they would have to:

have known the show would continue as long as it has. (They didn't they originally planned to stop at the red wedding.)

have known george wouldn't have finished winds of winter when they started.

have full control of the cast and crew and all decisions involved.

not have any one above them to dictate what they can and can't do.

Not be affected by the actions of others.

not have any constraints such as time and or money.

It is much logical to blame God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbour. If your into astrology you may prefer to blame a Star.

and secondly the quality of a show is subjective and going by the awards they get are subjectively good.

and in terms of adaptation they doing better than the median. there's the one where they replaced a ukranian football team with an American and a brit just so they could have the Allies beat the nazis. good morning Vietnam where they replied a die hard republican with a reveloutioary liberal, brave heart in which they basically changed all of history. technically turning William Wallace into a time travelling pedophile. and these were real people not fictional. would a like more adaptations that match the quality of Zulu and Waterloo. yes but do I expect all to match that level of accuracy no. even some of the best known and celebrated directors and producers fail in their adaptations for example Nolan with Dunkirk.

They have done a lot better with fictional characters than others have done with real people who are still alive at the point of of release and went through traumatic events.


I still think past post is relevant. although Duncan has made similar points far more intelligently and articulate than I ever would.

_________________
"My life it should be the focus of all my energies and professional skills, but the truth is that I don’t really give a shit.”
"Farewell hope and with hope farewell fear. Farewell remorse: allgood to me is lost" - my thoughts after brexit.
"we can dae it, we will dae it, we simply huv to dae it - fur the weans! "
My core values:
Reading.
Riting.
Rithmetic.
Purging society of degenerates.


Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:44 am
Profile
house stark
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Cleveland, Oh
I for one believe that D&D captured GRRM's idea of Stannis to a tee.

_________________
Oh, I think he'll fit. Unbuttered.

Fantasy Football: A Njoku Needs A Name


Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:34 am
Profile
brotherhood without banners
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4052
It is ironic, TDD, that you care about how you are being perceived when your entire line of videos is about creating a very negative portrait of people you do not know...like Brian Cogman and D&D to get them fired. It is also telling that THIS is what you care about rather than how you conducted yourself on twitter in your interactions with for instance Brian Cogman and Sean T. Collins...all over a tv show. But that behaviour is why people like me feel that the hosts should not have had you on the podcast, not your conclusions about the production of the show (which I disagree with but that's neither here nor there) or how much evidence you have or don't have to back up your points.

_________________
The night is dark and full of terrors.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:06 am
Profile
♜ vassals of kingsgrave curator ♖
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Posts: 2438
Location: Nashville, TN
Valyrian Neil wrote:
I for one believe that D&D captured GRRM's idea of Stannis to a tee.



That I can’t agree with. On a micro level in some scenes, yes, but not overall. It’s close but still #notmystannis lol

_________________
Image

-Adam

Skype: drownedsnow

"You know what? My dad has gout. He's not stupid". -Bina


Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:06 pm
Profile
☑ ☑ ☑ guest host: triple gold club™
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:11 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Jersey
I think Stephen Dillane acted Stannis to a tee.

Mr. Dragon Demands: Acted, not emoted.


Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:21 pm
Profile
★wardens of the woody★
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:20 pm
Posts: 1527
Location: Kalamazoo, The Southern North
Dillane was fine. He's no Liam Cunningham, but who is?

Book Stannis passionately fucks Melisandre on the painted table after she says she'll give him a son?

_________________
"These wonderful narrations inspired me with strange feelings. Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike."
—The Monster, from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Skype: danpepper79


Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:31 am
Profile
♜ vassals of kingsgrave curator ♖
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:50 pm
Posts: 4778
Location: Long Island
witless chum wrote:
Book Stannis passionately fucks Melisandre on the painted table after she says she'll give him a son?


Yes, this is what we all should really be debating! The accuracy in the level of Stannis's lovemaking! Why are there not 4 hour videos devoted to this!?

_________________
"Abraham Lincoln once said that if you are a racist I will attack you with the North." - Michael Scott

House Words: "I'm in as long as I don't have to edit."


Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:38 am
Profile
★wardens of the woody★
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:20 pm
Posts: 1527
Location: Kalamazoo, The Southern North
claudiusthefool wrote:
witless chum wrote:
Book Stannis passionately fucks Melisandre on the painted table after she says she'll give him a son?


Yes, this is what we all should really be debating! The accuracy in the level of Stannis's lovemaking! Why are there not 4 hour videos devoted to this!?


I give it four aching loins out of a PUH-TYRE! at most.

I just went and read the locked thread after not being here since I posted early in it and actual LOL at your "Game of Thrones Coast to Coast radio."

_________________
"These wonderful narrations inspired me with strange feelings. Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike."
—The Monster, from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Skype: danpepper79


Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:51 am
Profile
house blackwoody
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:04 am
Posts: 621
Location: Boston, MA
OK, here we go. I’m going to argue this case on the merits, and argue why I think that many of the things you argue for fall apart, and specifically why I think that your crusade is doomed to failure. I hope you’ll actually read this and actually listen to what I’m saying. I want to be clear that I’m not writing this to tear you to threads or to embarrass you or “destroy you”, to use a term you’ve used. I’m trying to explain why I disagree with much of what you are saying and why. That said, you do have some valid points, but we’ll get to that in a bit.

Note that this will be pretty much spoiler free for book readers who don’t watch the show, though I doubt that any are still reading this thread! (There’s one comment in the second to next paragraph that gives a season 5 spoiler about a show change from the books, but it won’t spoil anything that will happen in the books.)

Let’s start with the evidence that you present. You present lots of evidence that out of context may prove your points. But you also ignore lots of evidence that proves the opposite. On some meta-level, that’s precisely what you do with the people in discussion forums, and one of the main reasons people get so frustrated with you. You’re less interested in trying to understand what people actually think and believe than in trying to prove your point. And I’ll argue it’s why I don’t believe that you actually come to understand what you claim to be investigating.

One great example is the producers’ decision to substitute Sansa for “fArya”/Jeyne Poole on the show. You’ve found quotes where they praise Sophie’s acting and say that it helps show why it was a good decision. But you completely ignore the literally dozens of times they’ve said that the main reason to make such a change is so that these major events happen to characters that the audience is invested in, so that it will have a stronger emotional impact. They’ve also stated many times that the show already has a larger cast than any other show on television, which makes it important to try to combine roles for the sake of the audience. Now, I get that you might not accept or like these reasons. But they’ve distinctly and specifically said that these were their main reasons for this decision on many different occasions. You’re the one arguing that we should listen to their own words, but you’re not doing so here, in one of the major points that your entire theory is built around.

Another great example is when you bring up Steven Dillane’s comments of not understanding the character of Stannis to show how the actors of Game of Thrones don’t understand their characters, while ignoring the literally dozens if not hundreds of actors on the show that say otherwise. Yes, it’s clear that Dillane doesn’t understand or appreciate a lot of the nuances and history of his character. That’s hardly anything new with genre (sci-fi/fantasy) television. Lots of actors look down on the genre and don’t consider it worthwhile, even if they’re sometimes reluctantly happy to take the roles and the money that come with them. We later hear tons of actors talking trash about when they sunk to appearing in genre works. Whether or not that’s how Dillane believes, it’s hard to say, but from his interviews, it certainly sounds that way to me. But in the end, he gave a great performance. Does it matter if he understands or cares what shadow assassins are or what the Lord of Light is really about? Not if he gives a performance that the audience enjoys. But more importantly, you’re ignoring the dozens of actors who have literally gushed about the show, its writing and its producers. But we’re supposed to take one disgruntled actor as representative of the whole because you didn’t like his character’s story arc?

But another important aspect in your decision to use the writers’ words as the be all and end all for why they did things is that you’re ignoring that they aren’t just writers. They’re producers and executive producers, which provides an entirely different set of demands, needs and requirements. And when they’re talking to the media and in commentaries, they’re primarily speaking as executive producers, trying to promote their product and their actors, not as writers trying to explain the nuance of every writing decision. So, you’re getting very incomplete discussion of their decision making process.

Of course they’re going to gush over their actors. ALL producers do that. Because, like it or not, the main reason most people watch TV or movies is to see great actors making great performances. (More on that later.) That’s promotion. So, of course, they’re going to spend more time in a commentary gushing over the actress’ performance than in explaining exactly why they had her say those specific words. That’s what most people want to hear about. But more importantly, it keeps those stars – and their agents – happy. The more nice things they say about an actor, the more good press they get, the more likely that actor is to get more and better roles in the future. That’s an important need producers have to meet. They have to juggle lots of responsibilities and the sometimes conflicting needs of many different people. George doesn’t have these problems.

But it also means that there may (or may not) be lots of other reasons for the decisions that they made that you’re not aware about, and they’re certainly not going to disclose publicly. Maybe they thought that Sansa’s continued book storyline in the Eyrie is boring as hell and wouldn’t make good television. They’re not going to say that publicly and make George look bad. Maybe Peter Dinklage’s agent is demanding meatier material for him, or he’s going to walk, leaving them without one of their major – and irreplaceable – stars. Maybe the CEO of HBO (or his daughter) really likes Arya and the Hound together and wants more scenes of them. And he’ll more likely give them the extra 3 million they’ll need for the season finale if they make him and his daughter happy. Maybe they had professional or personal issues with one of the actors (Ian McElhinney as Barristan, perhaps?), and wrote his character out as a result? Maybe an actor got another job, or wanted to take one, unless their material would justify them staying. Maybe the scenes that they want to make are unfilmable on a TV budget, and they have to make major alterations to the storyline as a result (like most of “The Battle of the Bastards.”) Who knows? We don’t and can’t. Do you seriously think they’re going to dish all of this dirt? Not if they want another job in Hollywood.

Or, in short, (LOL! something neither of us is good at!) as Duncan noted above, you’re ignoring the fact that nearly all of the quotes you’ve provided for your “evidence” is promotional material, rather than specific writers’ intent.

Now, you may not accept that any of these are valid reasons for making certain writing decisions or for making changes to George’s narrative, and that all such changes should be justified within the narrative, but that’s your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it. But you like to present your opinions as facts, when they’re not.

The biggest example of this is when you constantly state that “emoting” isn’t acting. You regularly state this as fact. It’s not. It’s your opinion. And frankly, it’s one that I’ve heard very few people promote. Personally, I disagree wholeheartedly with this notion. I believe that what separates good actors from great actors is their ability to believably convey complex emotions. I don’t just watch Game of Thrones because I want to see dragons or huge plot twists like the Red Wedding, or even just to see great book scenes like Dracarys portrayed on screen. I watch it because I want to see great actors portraying great characters. What helps me BELIEVE in this world isn’t just good CGI, it’s actors that sell me that this world and its characters are real.

And I’d argue that I’m not alone in that. There are reasons that with only a few exceptions, Hollywood pays most of its money to actors, rather than writers or occasionally directors. There are reasons why a known star can bring in tons more viewers than a great and respected director (with a very few notable exceptions,) and why virtually no one goes to a movie or watches because of the writers. Ask anyone on the street who wrote their favorite movie or their favorite episode of their favorite show, and I’ll bet you that nearly no one can do so. They MIGHT know the director of a movie, if he’s a really big name (like say Spielberg). But they know the stars. And it’s usually the stars that bring them to the movie or the show. Yes, many of us in fandom are different, but by definition we’re nerds and readers, and as such, very atypical.

As such, the entire industry revolves around actors. When an actor on a show is connecting with an audience or giving a great performance, the producers will absolutely demand that the writers write better roles and scenes for them. And if you’ve got a truly great actor, you absolutely give them more and better and meatier material to work on. You argue that “what they're doing is not normal”. Except that it IS normal on virtually every other show on television.

Look, it’s no secret that neither Hollywood nor the general public really respected the sci-fi and fantasy genres until recent years. One huge reason for it is because historically, much of the characterization was quite shallow and stereotypical. I mean, seriously, how complex of a character is Luke Skywalker? Or Indiana Jones? Ian McKellen is one of our planet’s finest actors, but he didn’t win any acting awards for playing Gandalf. And he didn’t deserve any. Sure, he performed the job perfectly, but it was hardly a challenging role. Hollywood doesn’t give awards for “You Shall Not Pass”. They give awards for complex emotional performances. Or, as you like to quite literally sneer: for “emoting”.

But one of the things that has brought out more viewers to genre movies and tv shows is that the characters (and the storylines) have gotten more emotionally complex. In fact, that’s one of the biggest reasons for the success of Game of Thrones. Those extra moments that they have written for these actors that you sneer at are precisely the moments that most people remember most – along with the dragons and red weddings. I know lots of people who would never watch a show about dragons and kings, but LOVE Game of Thrones because of the amazing characters and performances.

So, even if every single decision was based on giving actors better material to play with, THAT IS A VALID ARTISTIC DECISION. You may or may not like it. And that’s absolutely fine. But you repeatedly claim that these are “impulsive” decisions -- emphasis on impulsive -- and they’re very clearly not. They are artistic choices made to give the viewers the moments they crave of great actors performing great parts. It’s a creative philosophy that you disagree with. What’s impulsive about that? And how is that different from almost every other show on television? This isn't "pandering to the actors." It's making good television that pleases the audiences, the cast and the people paying for it, and providing them with what they want.

And there’s where your entire crusade is flawed. You act as if you’ve made some major discovery that will rock Hollywood. That when you reveal these secrets that all of Hollywood will react with outrage. That it will “destroy” these writer/producers and their careers. You argue that they don’t understand how television works because they disagree with your desires and priority.

But nothing could be further from the truth. If you told an HBO executive that the producers changed a storyline because they wanted to highlight one of their actors, they would say, “OF COURSE they did!” They would say that that’s why they’ve given them this show and all of this money. You’d argue that not every decision made the most narrative sense (and I’d agree with you in some cases, for the record!), and they’d point to this season’s ratings as the highest that HBO has EVER achieved on ANYTHING. They’d point to 25 million legal paying viewers in the US alone. They’d point to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the show has brought in, and all the new subscribers and all the merchandise and all the prestige and all the awards – including ACTING awards and nominations, and WRITING nominations and awards. And they’d ask you what you’re smoking if you have a problem with that. You haven’t uncovered any secret conspiracy that will rock Hollywood. Even if you convince every single person in the world of your theories, Hollywood will react with a big “So what?”, or more likely, with “Great, we hope that they keep it up!”

All of the evidence shows that they are producing EXACTLY what Hollywood and HBO wants. There are reasons that HBO and Disney are giving them such high profile projects. There are reasons that they are winning awards. We can debate endlessly whether or not they deserve those awards or those projects, but Hollywood clearly thinks that they do. And they’re not going to care in the least what a bunch of nerds are complaining about on the internet. They never do.

To end on a more positive note, if this leaves you depressed and feeling powerless, take a strange solace that one of the other reasons behind your crusade is wrong too. You believe that shows and projects that you want are getting rejected because D&D are getting jobs that might otherwise go to them. However, that’s not really true. The truth is that because of the success of Game of Thrones, far more projects will get a chance and be greenlit and produced. That’s how Hollywood works. Make a hit, and Hollywood wants more like it. There are literally dozens of series and movies that will get a chance from the Hollywood execs because of the success of Game of Thrones. And HBO in particular now has a lot more money and a much larger subscriber base to justify spending money on new projects. So, all is not lost. Maybe you’ll hate everything D&D do in the future. Or maybe you won’t. Who knows? But they actually have no interest in doing more Game of Thrones material, so their working on the prequel series is not even on the table. But there will likely be some other things coming out that you will like that happen directly because of their success in making this show.


Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:27 am
Profile
house stark
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Cleveland, Oh
davidhhh wrote:
OK, here we go. I’m going to argue this case on the merits, and argue why I think that many of the things you argue for fall apart, and specifically why I think that your crusade is doomed to failure. I hope you’ll actually read this and actually listen to what I’m saying. I want to be clear that I’m not writing this to tear you to threads or to embarrass you or “destroy you”, to use a term you’ve used. I’m trying to explain why I disagree with much of what you are saying and why. That said, you do have some valid points, but we’ll get to that in a bit.

Note that this will be pretty much spoiler free for book readers who don’t watch the show, though I doubt that any are still reading this thread! (There’s one comment in the second to next paragraph that gives a season 5 spoiler about a show change from the books, but it won’t spoil anything that will happen in the books.)

Let’s start with the evidence that you present. You present lots of evidence that out of context may prove your points. But you also ignore lots of evidence that proves the opposite. On some meta-level, that’s precisely what you do with the people in discussion forums, and one of the main reasons people get so frustrated with you. You’re less interested in trying to understand what people actually think and believe than in trying to prove your point. And I’ll argue it’s why I don’t believe that you actually come to understand what you claim to be investigating.

One great example is the producers’ decision to substitute Sansa for “fArya”/Jeyne Poole on the show. You’ve found quotes where they praise Sophie’s acting and say that it helps show why it was a good decision. But you completely ignore the literally dozens of times they’ve said that the main reason to make such a change is so that these major events happen to characters that the audience is invested in, so that it will have a stronger emotional impact. They’ve also stated many times that the show already has a larger cast than any other show on television, which makes it important to try to combine roles for the sake of the audience. Now, I get that you might not accept or like these reasons. But they’ve distinctly and specifically said that these were their main reasons for this decision on many different occasions. You’re the one arguing that we should listen to their own words, but you’re not doing so here, in one of the major points that your entire theory is built around.

Another great example is when you bring up Steven Dillane’s comments of not understanding the character of Stannis to show how the actors of Game of Thrones don’t understand their characters, while ignoring the literally dozens if not hundreds of actors on the show that say otherwise. Yes, it’s clear that Dillane doesn’t understand or appreciate a lot of the nuances and history of his character. That’s hardly anything new with genre (sci-fi/fantasy) television. Lots of actors look down on the genre and don’t consider it worthwhile, even if they’re sometimes reluctantly happy to take the roles and the money that come with them. We later hear tons of actors talking trash about when they sunk to appearing in genre works. Whether or not that’s how Dillane believes, it’s hard to say, but from his interviews, it certainly sounds that way to me. But in the end, he gave a great performance. Does it matter if he understands or cares what shadow assassins are or what the Lord of Light is really about? Not if he gives a performance that the audience enjoys. But more importantly, you’re ignoring the dozens of actors who have literally gushed about the show, its writing and its producers. But we’re supposed to take one disgruntled actor as representative of the whole because you didn’t like his character’s story arc?

But another important aspect in your decision to use the writers’ words as the be all and end all for why they did things is that you’re ignoring that they aren’t just writers. They’re producers and executive producers, which provides an entirely different set of demands, needs and requirements. And when they’re talking to the media and in commentaries, they’re primarily speaking as executive producers, trying to promote their product and their actors, not as writers trying to explain the nuance of every writing decision. So, you’re getting very incomplete discussion of their decision making process.

Of course they’re going to gush over their actors. ALL producers do that. Because, like it or not, the main reason most people watch TV or movies is to see great actors making great performances. (More on that later.) That’s promotion. So, of course, they’re going to spend more time in a commentary gushing over the actress’ performance than in explaining exactly why they had her say those specific words. That’s what most people want to hear about. But more importantly, it keeps those stars – and their agents – happy. The more nice things they say about an actor, the more good press they get, the more likely that actor is to get more and better roles in the future. That’s an important need producers have to meet. They have to juggle lots of responsibilities and the sometimes conflicting needs of many different people. George doesn’t have these problems.

But it also means that there may (or may not) be lots of other reasons for the decisions that they made that you’re not aware about, and they’re certainly not going to disclose publicly. Maybe they thought that Sansa’s continued book storyline in the Eyrie is boring as hell and wouldn’t make good television. They’re not going to say that publicly and make George look bad. Maybe Peter Dinklage’s agent is demanding meatier material for him, or he’s going to walk, leaving them without one of their major – and irreplaceable – stars. Maybe the CEO of HBO (or his daughter) really likes Arya and the Hound together and wants more scenes of them. And he’ll more likely give them the extra 3 million they’ll need for the season finale if they make him and his daughter happy. Maybe they had professional or personal issues with one of the actors (Ian McElhinney as Barristan, perhaps?), and wrote his character out as a result? Maybe an actor got another job, or wanted to take one, unless their material would justify them staying. Maybe the scenes that they want to make are unfilmable on a TV budget, and they have to make major alterations to the storyline as a result (like most of “The Battle of the Bastards.”) Who knows? We don’t and can’t. Do you seriously think they’re going to dish all of this dirt? Not if they want another job in Hollywood.

Or, in short, (LOL! something neither of us is good at!) as Duncan noted above, you’re ignoring the fact that nearly all of the quotes you’ve provided for your “evidence” is promotional material, rather than specific writers’ intent.

Now, you may not accept that any of these are valid reasons for making certain writing decisions or for making changes to George’s narrative, and that all such changes should be justified within the narrative, but that’s your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it. But you like to present your opinions as facts, when they’re not.

The biggest example of this is when you constantly state that “emoting” isn’t acting. You regularly state this as fact. It’s not. It’s your opinion. And frankly, it’s one that I’ve heard very few people promote. Personally, I disagree wholeheartedly with this notion. I believe that what separates good actors from great actors is their ability to believably convey complex emotions. I don’t just watch Game of Thrones because I want to see dragons or huge plot twists like the Red Wedding, or even just to see great book scenes like Dracarys portrayed on screen. I watch it because I want to see great actors portraying great characters. What helps me BELIEVE in this world isn’t just good CGI, it’s actors that sell me that this world and its characters are real.

And I’d argue that I’m not alone in that. There are reasons that with only a few exceptions, Hollywood pays most of its money to actors, rather than writers or occasionally directors. There are reasons why a known star can bring in tons more viewers than a great and respected director (with a very few notable exceptions,) and why virtually no one goes to a movie or watches because of the writers. Ask anyone on the street who wrote their favorite movie or their favorite episode of their favorite show, and I’ll bet you that nearly no one can do so. They MIGHT know the director of a movie, if he’s a really big name (like say Spielberg). But they know the stars. And it’s usually the stars that bring them to the movie or the show. Yes, many of us in fandom are different, but by definition we’re nerds and readers, and as such, very atypical.

As such, the entire industry revolves around actors. When an actor on a show is connecting with an audience or giving a great performance, the producers will absolutely demand that the writers write better roles and scenes for them. And if you’ve got a truly great actor, you absolutely give them more and better and meatier material to work on. You argue that “what they're doing is not normal”. Except that it IS normal on virtually every other show on television.

Look, it’s no secret that neither Hollywood nor the general public really respected the sci-fi and fantasy genres until recent years. One huge reason for it is because historically, much of the characterization was quite shallow and stereotypical. I mean, seriously, how complex of a character is Luke Skywalker? Or Indiana Jones? Ian McKellen is one of our planet’s finest actors, but he didn’t win any acting awards for playing Gandalf. And he didn’t deserve any. Sure, he performed the job perfectly, but it was hardly a challenging role. Hollywood doesn’t give awards for “You Shall Not Pass”. They give awards for complex emotional performances. Or, as you like to quite literally sneer: for “emoting”.

But one of the things that has brought out more viewers to genre movies and tv shows is that the characters (and the storylines) have gotten more emotionally complex. In fact, that’s one of the biggest reasons for the success of Game of Thrones. Those extra moments that they have written for these actors that you sneer at are precisely the moments that most people remember most – along with the dragons and red weddings. I know lots of people who would never watch a show about dragons and kings, but LOVE Game of Thrones because of the amazing characters and performances.

So, even if every single decision was based on giving actors better material to play with, THAT IS A VALID ARTISTIC DECISION. You may or may not like it. And that’s absolutely fine. But you repeatedly claim that these are “impulsive” decisions -- emphasis on impulsive -- and they’re very clearly not. They are artistic choices made to give the viewers the moments they crave of great actors performing great parts. It’s a creative philosophy that you disagree with. What’s impulsive about that? And how is that different from almost every other show on television? This isn't "pandering to the actors." It's making good television that pleases the audiences, the cast and the people paying for it, and providing them with what they want.

And there’s where your entire crusade is flawed. You act as if you’ve made some major discovery that will rock Hollywood. That when you reveal these secrets that all of Hollywood will react with outrage. That it will “destroy” these writer/producers and their careers. You argue that they don’t understand how television works because they disagree with your desires and priority.

But nothing could be further from the truth. If you told an HBO executive that the producers changed a storyline because they wanted to highlight one of their actors, they would say, “OF COURSE they did!” They would say that that’s why they’ve given them this show and all of this money. You’d argue that not every decision made the most narrative sense (and I’d agree with you in some cases, for the record!), and they’d point to this season’s ratings as the highest that HBO has EVER achieved on ANYTHING. They’d point to 25 million legal paying viewers in the US alone. They’d point to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the show has brought in, and all the new subscribers and all the merchandise and all the prestige and all the awards – including ACTING awards and nominations, and WRITING nominations and awards. And they’d ask you what you’re smoking if you have a problem with that. You haven’t uncovered any secret conspiracy that will rock Hollywood. Even if you convince every single person in the world of your theories, Hollywood will react with a big “So what?”, or more likely, with “Great, we hope that they keep it up!”

All of the evidence shows that they are producing EXACTLY what Hollywood and HBO wants. There are reasons that HBO and Disney are giving them such high profile projects. There are reasons that they are winning awards. We can debate endlessly whether or not they deserve those awards or those projects, but Hollywood clearly thinks that they do. And they’re not going to care in the least what a bunch of nerds are complaining about on the internet. They never do.

To end on a more positive note, if this leaves you depressed and feeling powerless, take a strange solace that one of the other reasons behind your crusade is wrong too. You believe that shows and projects that you want are getting rejected because D&D are getting jobs that might otherwise go to them. However, that’s not really true. The truth is that because of the success of Game of Thrones, far more projects will get a chance and be greenlit and produced. That’s how Hollywood works. Make a hit, and Hollywood wants more like it. There are literally dozens of series and movies that will get a chance from the Hollywood execs because of the success of Game of Thrones. And HBO in particular now has a lot more money and a much larger subscriber base to justify spending money on new projects. So, all is not lost. Maybe you’ll hate everything D&D do in the future. Or maybe you won’t. Who knows? But they actually have no interest in doing more Game of Thrones material, so their working on the prequel series is not even on the table. But there will likely be some other things coming out that you will like that happen directly because of their success in making this show.


A David Demands! ;)

_________________
Oh, I think he'll fit. Unbuttered.

Fantasy Football: A Njoku Needs A Name


Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:00 am
Profile
house blackwoody
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:04 am
Posts: 621
Location: Boston, MA
Valyrian Neil wrote:
A David Demands! ;)


Excuse me, it's THE David Demands!


Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:28 pm
Profile
brotherhood without banners
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4052
davidhhh wrote:
Valyrian Neil wrote:
A David Demands! ;)


Excuse me, it's THE David Demands!

That was an excellent (and very long) reply to The Dragon Demands' arguments.

_________________
The night is dark and full of terrors.


Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:39 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 19 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.