CJD wrote:^That's why I love you Chuck. Only you can gripe about the ivory tower and then mere days later feel the need to differentiate between genre fiction and literature.
Chuckman is ephemeral, like quicksilver. Many try to capture the spirit of Chuckman, only to find they grasp at shadows and half remembered dreams.
I make the distinction because ASOIAF is incredibly layered and complex and touches on themes of war, gender roles, environmentalism, economics, class struggle, and the like. Jordan's work, while remarkable in its scope and stronger in its prose (Jordan's real life combat experience is obvious when you read his battle scenes) is a mile wide and an inch deep; even its apparent commentary on gender roles is just a fetish for bondage and strong women. (Not that I fault him for that. Who doesn't love a good tsundere and a little rope play?)
My gripes come from the fact that the establishment does not recognize work like ASOIAF as literature
and refuses to consider it, because it is labeled as fantasy and has mass market appeal. I further resent that "science fiction" has managed to claw itself some respectability while fantasy has not when they're really the same freaking thing most of the time.
Having just read the books this year, I came away with two major complaints, and this was one of them. (For the record, the other was the fact that they removed practically all but the bare minimum fantasy elements of the story. In the books there are prophecies upon prophecies, magical relics, and generally far more mysticism.)
They did this for obvious reasons: to further the mass market appeal. Some of the decisions they've made are baffling, though. The costume designs are great, for example, but Martin carefully describes fashions with real world analogues in the books. I was disappointed that Sansa's wedding gown was completely wrong, even though it was very intricate and well made.
Everything got turned down. Everything. The scene in season 1 where Viserys gets his crown? The building they were in at the time had like a thousand people in it if I recall correctly. In the TV show it had less than a hundred. Everything's bigger in the books, and that's a huge downside of the adaption in my opinion. When I want stories adapted to the big screen it's almost exclusively to see the grandness detailed in the text displayed in visual format. Shrinking that grandness to a fraction of what it was only raises the question, why bother adapting it in the first place?
There's a reason for this. Martin spent most of his career as a television writer and part of his motivation to write the novels was to write the kind of television show he always wanted to make, but would be impossible due to budgetary and logistical considerations. They still have a hard time; it's one of the most expensive television shows ever.
Reichu wrote:mayhaps
I see what you did there.
Anyway, given their budget and extensive use of CGI they could be a little more clever with making things appear larger and people more numerous. The only thing they really capture well is the scale of the buildings. The Tourney of the Hand was ridiculous.
Frankly, I think they're wasting money on all these location shoots. A total greenscreen production with physical sets like Starz' Spartacus series would impart a kind of hyperreality and probably save a lot of money. I don't know the logistics of the film grants they get, though. I know they get funding and tax breaks for having a certain number of British cast members. I assume the location shoots are tied to similar incentives from the various locales.
