GAME OF THRONES

[SF1_freeze 136]

This will for sure be the best new show on television next year. The books this show is based on are on par with Lord of the Rings quality wise, but more realistic, dark and gritty. By the way "Game of Thrones" is scored by oscar winner Stephen Warbeck, not bad in my eyes and this further shows the ambition and quality HBO is known for!


This is a 10 minutes behind the scenes look

 

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[davros72 1]

I'm dying to see "Game of Thrones" but it's not on til April!

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[John Crichton 4]

I'm dying to see "Game of Thrones"

Same here.

For the sake of it :

I like. I've never read the books but I've heard good things about them. I think our old pal Justin was a big fan.

[SF1_freeze 136]

I'm currently waiting for the best medieval fantasy epos next to LoTR to be released on television April the 17th on HBO - Game of Thrones. Up to now Stephen Warbeck was to compose the music for it but now the producers replaced him with Rahmin Dawadi. I don't know what to expect now. I heard on the net that this guy doesnt seem to have much talent and i worry that he may ruin the music of the show...

Do you think he can create a rousing medieval, fantasy score (non electronic) in about 10 weeks. Can he do justice to such a great series?

[Ollie 1,140]

Ugh, get ready for the typical generic Hans Zimmer cloned music.

Awful decision.

[Quintus 5,454]

I keep hearing about this, I need to look out for it. HBO = quality.

[Brónach 1,306]

I haven't read the books but this looks interesting.

[John Crichton 4]

Ugh, get ready for the typical generic Hans Zimmer cloned music.

Awful decision.

Hopefully that's just the trailer and there'll be some good music in the show proper. The only HBO series I've really watched are John Adams and True Blood, both have good music.

As I've said I've never read the books, but on par with Lord of the Rings? Difficult to believe.

[Brónach 1,306]

From what I've been told it's a quite different point of view on fantasy than Tolkien (think Andrzej Sapkowski or the political intrigues in Dune) so I understand why people say that.

Also I guess people like looong and complicated stuff, too.

[Uni 306]

As I've said I've never read the books, but on par with Lord of the Rings? Difficult to believe.

Speaking as one who has been an almost obsessively loyal accolyte of Tolkien for more than a quarter century--and has seen many would-be's come and go (most of them failing miserably)--I can tell you: believe it. Martin's land of Westeros may not have the historical depth of Middle Earth (whose does?), but in its immediate form it has all the richness and complexity of Lord of the Rings (perhaps even more). The characters are astonishing in their realization, the dialogue is more clever and sharp than anyone currently writing in the fantasy field, and the political and dynastic landscape is massive and beautifully textured in its execution.

I'm not one to lightly pass the Tolkien mantle on to anyone else, but trust me: until you've read it, you're missing out.

From what I've been told it's a quite different point of view on fantasy than Tolkien (think Andrzej Sapkowski or the political intrigues in Dune) so I understand why people say that.

It's different, yes. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as the epilogue to an entire mythology he spent his life creating. It wasn't simply pulp fantasy (which, in until he wrote LOTR, didn't even exist as such). The world of Middle Earth was itself a higher sort of creation, and LOTR represented the merest piece of that gargantuan puzzle.

Martin's work is unquestionably a direct descendant of Tolkien's innovations. But his is a story with a different purpose in mind. This isn't epic fantasy in the quest mode, like Rings and all the RPG wannabes that followed in its footsteps. It's epic fantasy in the political/cultural mode, which is an altogether alternative approach to the genre.

Also I guess people like looong and complicated stuff, too.

Yeah, some of us do, at that. Which is why the classics will always have a place on the shelf. . . .

As for the upcoming HBO version: the recent adaptation of Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule series makes me skeptical at best--though that may not be entirely fair. Game of Thrones is based on an extraordinary novel by a superlative author; Legend of the Seeker is based on a poorly-written series by a mediocre writer (in my humble opinion, of course). Still, while the comparison isn't quite equal, I'll elect to withhold judgment until I see it.

- Uni

[John Crichton 4]

As I've said I've never read the books, but on par with Lord of the Rings? Difficult to believe.

Speaking as one who has been an almost obsessively loyal accolyte of Tolkien for more than a quarter century--and has seen many would-be's come and go (most of them failing miserably)--I can tell you: believe it. Martin's land of Westeros may not have the historical depth of Middle Earth (whose does?), but in its immediate form it has all the richness and complexity of Lord of the Rings (perhaps even more). The characters are astonishing in their realization, the dialogue is more clever and sharp than anyone currently writing in the fantasy field, and the political and dynastic landscape is massive and beautifully textured in its execution.

I'm not one to lightly pass the Tolkien mantle on to anyone else, but trust me: until you've read it, you're missing out.

A ringing endorsement. When I get through my Christmas book backlog I'll seek it out.

[Quintus 5,454]

Ugh, get ready for the typical generic Hans Zimmer cloned music.

Awful decision.

Hopefully that's just the trailer and there'll be some good music in the show proper. The only HBO series I've really watched are John Adams and True Blood, both have good music.

At this point I don't even care about how the music might sound. Honestly, Mr. O gets a little ahead of himself sometimes.

[davros72 1]

Warbeck has been replaced by Ramin Djawadi as composer...

http://www.tvsquad.c...ame-of-thrones/

http://www.westeros....In_as_Composer/

Not super-familiar with either one, really.

Still frickin' excited for the show, though!

[John Crichton 4]

So much for good music.

[Koray Savas 2,254]

They should have gone with Trevor Morris.

[Wojo 2,456]

As for the upcoming HBO version: the recent adaptation of Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule series makes me skeptical at best--though that may not be entirely fair. Game of Thrones is based on an extraordinary novel by a superlative author; Legend of the Seeker is based on a poorly-written series by a mediocre writer (in my humble opinion, of course). Still, while the comparison isn't quite equal, I'll elect to withhold judgment until I see it.

What I gathered from the only Goodkind book that I read, Temple of the Winds, is that the series is geared towards teenage boys. The men are all strong and masculine, and the women are all extremely attractive, voluptuous, and eager to spread the word of the day, "legs." That book alone had so much sex that I wasn't sure if I wanted to read the rest of the series for much of the same, or grab a magazine that has pictures. It was a noble goal to skim that aspect from the stories and try to make a show, and it's a shame the show flopped. TV audiences just aren't the same as when Hercules and Xena ruled the fantasy genre on the small screen.

I'll rent whatever DVD collection Game of Thrones debuts on because I don't get HBO. Until then, I'll grab the books when I see them inexpensively, adding another fantasy saga to the pile of books to read, along with K. J. Parker's Engineer Trilogy. I'm unfamiliar with Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" saga, but sadly, I was also unfamiliar with TLOTR before I saw the first trailer in 1999 or so. Fortunately I was able to read all four (including The Hobbit) before the first film opened.

As for the music, it is what it is. There is so much good film/TV music out there that to believe that every single film/TV series is required to have good music is...well, it's nice to dream. The "good composers" of today can't be on every project these days. If the show is good, I won't care what the music's like.

[BraveheartDC 0]

The books this show is based on are on par with Lord of the Rings quality wise

Um, no.

But very much looking forward to this nonetheless.

[davros72 1]

The books this show is based on are on par with Lord of the Rings quality wise

Um, no.

But very much looking forward to this nonetheless.

Agreed, they're much better than the LOTR books.

IMHO, anyway.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,424]

It's one book!

[Wojo 2,456]

Spiritually, yes. Physically, no.

If you tell a high school kid who doesn't like to read that he only has to read one book all year, but hand him three books, he may cry shenanigans.

If you were stuck in the hospital far from your home, and asked someone unfamiliar with the tale to go buy you "The Lord of the Rings" at the bookstore, and did not specify that it could consist of three individually bound books, odds would not be in your favor that the messenger would return with the complete saga*.

I lucked out when I asked my mom to buy me the books years ago. She came home with five books, including The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, that all matched this series:

*Unless they bought all three stories in one combined tome, which I bought for myself anyways lately.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,424]

It's one book!

[Wojo 2,456]

"One and one and one is three."

--The Beatles

"One and one don't make two, one and one make one."

--The Who

[BraveheartDC 0]

The books this show is based on are on par with Lord of the Rings quality wise

Um, no.

But very much looking forward to this nonetheless.

Agreed, they're much better than the LOTR books.

IMHO, anyway.

Step away from the keyboard.

Seriously, drunk posting: NOT COOL.

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[Uni 306]

If you tell a high school kid who doesn't like to read that he only has to read one book all year, but hand him three books, he may cry shenanigans.

If your high schooler can't be bothered to read more than one book a year, not only will he hate LOTR, but he won't be able to spell "shenanigans."

If you were stuck in the hospital far from your home, and asked someone unfamiliar with the tale to go buy you "The Lord of the Rings" at the bookstore, and did not specify that it could consist of three individually bound books, odds would not be in your favor that the messenger would return with the complete saga*.

If you make the mistake of sending someone so ignorant that they haven't heard of LOTR and don't know it's three books, and so stupid that they can't look at the cover and understand what "Volume One of The Lord of the Rings" means, then you deserve what you get from them.

And if I were "stuck in a hospital" not only far from my home, but apparently hell-and-gone from bookstores with employees who could assist their customers, then not being able to get my hands on Tolkien's great novel would be the least of my worries.

Sorry, Wojo, but Steef's right on this one: The Lord of the Rings is one novel published in three volumes, not by the author's choice but the publisher's. These same publishers sagely switched out the original titles of the last two books with idiotic replacements. (Which "two towers?" And why the hell would you want to give away the ending in the title, fercryinoutloud?) Tolkien never meant it to be anything but single story in a single book.

- Uni

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,424]

Hmmm...I thought The Two Towers was Tolkiens intended title. ROTK was supposed to be called The War Of The Ring though.

[Wojo 2,456]

I didn't know you had to know how to spell a word in order to use it. I had that problem for the longest time with the word "phenolic."

Sorry, Wojo, but Steef's right on this one: The Lord of the Rings is one novel published in three volumes, not by the author's choice but the publisher's. These same publishers sagely switched out the original titles of the last two books with idiotic replacements. (Which "two towers?" And why the hell would you want to give away the ending in the title, fercryinoutloud?) Tolkien never meant it to be anything but single story in a single book.

- Uni

Oh shut up. I realize everyone here considers you to be one of the absolute greatest posters and a wise old sage, but you're 12 days too late to the party. Get both of yourselves bent.

I know that it's one "book," but you cannot ignore the fact that this one book is commonly physically split into three "books." Those that do cannot count. Sorry. To hell with Tolkien's original intentions. He also wanted them filmed as written: one half follows Frodo and Sam, the other half follows the rest of the Company. How cinematically exciting would that have been?

I was advocating the devil for the sake of argument because this message board has grown so stale, boring, and irrelevant that it's the only thing we have left: argue that which we know and take for granted.

--

I've read mixed reviews on Book One of the Game of Thrones saga, even with my local Borders stores selling things for a healthy discount. Some love it, some hate it. I'm not sure I want to buy it just yet.

[Uni 306]

Hmmm...I thought The Two Towers was Tolkiens intended title. ROTK was supposed to be called The War Of The Ring though.

The Treason of Isengard was Tolkien's intended title.

Oh shut up. I realize everyone here considers you to be one of the absolute greatest posters and a wise old sage, but you're 12 days too late to the party.

Ooo . . . my bad. Is there a statute of limitations on posting responses? A week? What?

Get both of yourselves bent.

We'll get right on that! C'mon, Steef!

I was advocating the devil for the sake of argument because this message board has grown so stale, boring, and irrelevant that it's the only thing we have left: argue that which we know and take for granted.

If you wanna advocate the devil, you can't knock people for getting perturbed when you're swingin' the pitchfork around. But hey--if you're after an argument, then you've gotten what you wanted, right? So it's all good!

I've read mixed reviews on Book One of the Game of Thrones saga, even with my local Borders stores selling things for a healthy discount. Some love it, some hate it. I'm not sure I want to buy it just yet.

I'm not quite prepared to say (as some do) that it's the equal or superior of LOTR . . . but if there's a clear candidate for heir apparent, it's Martin.

- Uni

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[Quintus 5,454]

I can't remember about RotK right now, but I know for a fact Tolkien himself was deliberately ambiguous when he himself named the second 'book'. I personally go with the films' explanation, but for a while I did assume the title referred to Cirith Ungol and Minas Morgul.

In some ways TTT is the best title of all the three 'books'.

[Wojo 2,456]

Duly noted.

I didn't get a chance to visit the used bookstore last night when I was eyeing up the three Game of Thrones books of Martin's that the Borders had, since dinner ran over the 10:00 hour when all the stores closed, but I did make mental notes to check out Martin's books as well as Stephen R Donaldson's Tom Covenant saga, which I've read in the same breath as Martin and Tolkien on the backs of these fantasy books.

Fortunately my single volume hardback TLOTR -- with movie tie-in dust jacket, with single mounted Ringwraith on the front and four characters on the back, but $38 for <$20 used = score) is at hand.

We shouldn't be arguing over whether it's three books or one. It's six books, wrapped in three volumes or parts -- two books per -- to make one complete story/work/narrative.

My version does not give names to the books. They're just Book One, Book Two, and so on. The chapter numbers reset in each new book, such that A Long Expected Party is B1C1 while Many Meetings is B2C1. The telling indicator is that the page numbers do not reset when the chapter counts do. After the Prologue takes all of 20 pages, A Long Expected Party begins on page 21, while Many Meetings begins on page 213, not a new page 1. All the way out to page 1137, the last page of the index; this tome places the maps afterwards on unnumbered pages.

FOTR published in July 1954 (Oct US), TTT in November 1954 (April 1955 US), and TROTK in 1955 (1956 US). Three publish dates, three physical entities, three books. One complete work.

If you buy a single tome edition of The Lord of the Rings at Amazon, your cart contains 1 item. If you clear your cart and buy The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King as individual books, your cart contains 3 items. It won't bind you into buying all three at once, nor give you a BOGT or BTGO deal.

JRR Tolkien may have redefined high fantasy with The Lord of the Rings. He did not, however, redefine the meaning of the word "book."

[Uni 306]

It's six books, wrapped in three volumes or parts -- two books per -- to make one complete story/work/narrative.

Correct.

JRR Tolkien may have redefined high fantasy with The Lord of the Rings. He did not, however, redefine the meaning of the word "book."

No, but many authors use the word "book" interchangably with "part"--i.e., they call the first section of their novel "Book One" to indicate the first "act" of the story. That's the meaning Tolkien was using, which is why the page numbers never reset in the middle of any volume, whether they're split three ways or combined in one tome.

- Uni

[Morlock 11]

I think it's about time to reread the series. Last time it took me a month and a half (slow reader), that should get me back in the swing of it by the time this starts. (I've been reading a superb single volume fantasy book, really got me back in the whole mindset).

[Wojo 2,456]

Which, Morlock?

I'd like to get my paws on another excellent fantasy saga, but the plethora of multi-installment series intimidates me.

[Brónach 1,306]

Which, Morlock?

I'd like to get my paws on another excellent fantasy saga, but the plethora of multi-installment series intimidates me.

I don't know if you are familiar with it, but I would recommend Sapkowski's Geralt of Rivia. It starts with a pair of books of short stories that are followed by a five part saga if you want to continue. An amazing read, but I'm not sure how much of it is avalaible in English.

[Wojo 2,456]

My knowledge of Polish culture is limited to my name and the occasional meal. But I do plan to get to The Witcher very soon, even though that belongs in the video game thread.

[Quintus 5,454]

I think it's about time to reread the series. Last time it took me a month and a half (slow reader),

Try eighteen months. That's how long it took me, on and off, big breaks in between chapters. That was back in my partying days though, before I became a boring bastard.

[Wojo 2,456]

You mean a father.

[Morlock 11]

Which, Morlock?

I'd like to get my paws on another excellent fantasy saga, but the plethora of multi-installment series intimidates me.

Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana. I'm loving it.

[Wojo 2,456]

Bueno. I'll add it to the list. Looks good over at Amazon, and 688 pages is healthy big. Thanks!

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[Morlock 11]

I'd almost given up all hope...started rereading (so far, so good- 300 pages into book 1. only 3000 to go...)

[SF1_freeze 136]

The first 15 minutes of episode one will be previewed on HBO and on the net on April the 3rd!

Here is the newest and longest trailer to date

[BloodBoal 7,541]

[Jay 39,596]

Damn, it's gonna be hard !

That's what she said

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It wasn't simply pulp fantasy (which, in until he wrote LOTR, didn't even exist as such).

Didn't even exist? Burroughs? Howard? Lovecraft?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but this seems a ludicrous thing to say.

[Wojo 2,456]

Charlie's got a point. I just read an article on "pulp fantasy," also described as "sword and sorcery," similar to "sword and sandal," and Tolkien isn't even mentioned.

Tolkien's works emphasizes the history and culture of his fantasy world, with action thrown in to drive the plot forward, while Burroughs and Howard's works emphasize the action.

It's almost as if PJ married the two aspects of fantasy together when he made his saga.