A visual medium – like television – has certain advantages over the printed word. For example, an actor who makes savvy performance choices can convey more about a character with their poise and their voice than entire paragraphs of text can. The way actors move within the frame, the choices of the cinematographer, the director, the costumers, the set designers… all of these are ways to communicate meaning to the audience.
It also faces certain disadvantages. It’s trickier to deliver exposition in a natural-seeming way, for instance. However, for my money, the single biggest challenge in adapting a book to a TV show is length.
In practical terms, books are way longer than shows – and that’s just normal books. GRRM’s works are your classic twenty-stone fantasy doorstoppers. To give you an idea, A Storm of Swords, which is the longest of the series, is 424,000 words. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy? 481,000.These word counts vary according to the counting method. But the point is, GRRM’s books are very long. If you were to attempt a completely faithful, scene-by-scene, line-by-line reproduction of the books, you’d have to have fifty episodes a season.
The practical limitations of the form make that impossible, so the act of adapting A Song of Ice and Fire into a TV show is an act of severe abridgment. Every scene has to be pared down to the bone, entire storylines have to be cut, multiple characters have to be merged together into one, and so forth.
It’s why I always check myself whenever I get grumpy that one of my favorite things from the books isn’t in the show. I have to remind myself that they really just don’t have time to include everything. I try to be as understanding as possible.
Sometimes, though, the writers get an opportunity to show us what they do have time for, and that’s Arya getting hit with a stick over and over again.
Arya gets hit with a stick over and over again

While I was rewatching season six, I wondered if maybe my treacherous memory wasn’t exaggerating the amount of time Arya spends getting hit with a stick. If anything, it was downplaying it. Four of the first five episodes have their own separate “Arya gets hit with a stick” montage, some of them so long they border on comical.
As a category of scene, the training montage has sharply diminishing returns. Even the Rocky franchaise limited itself to one per movie.With the possible exception of Rocky III. Scholars are divided on whether the sequence preceding the first Clubber Lang fight constitutes a true montage. It gets worse when you wonder what all of this training is for. At no point either before or after these sequences will we ever see a Faceless man or woman dispatch a target with their stickfighting skills. Generally, they favor some combination of trickery, poison, and good old fashioned stabbing. But you’d never guess it from their training methods.
This is frustrating because we’ve seen that the show can do the whole “assassin training” thing in an interesting way. In the books – and at times in season five of the show – Arya and her various mentors play something called “the lying game.” Basically, one character tells another a story – or anything, really – in which some details are true and some are false. The other tries to sort out the truth from the lies.
Maybe this is just my inner fanboy showing, but that’s a fantastic dialogue hook, isn’t it? If I were an actor, I’d be chomping at the bit to play a scene like that. If I were an (actual) writer I’d be chomping at the bit to write it. In fact, the lying game produces what I consider to be Arya’s best character moments of the last two seasons, where she tries to figure out – for herself as well as the audience – what exactly she thinks of the Hound.

But in season six, it’s just stickfighting, stickfighting, and more stickfighting, interspersed with short bits of dialogue that don’t move anything in particular forward. One of GRRM’s gifts is his ability to take hoary old fantasy cliches – like the mysterious guild of assassins – and give them an interesting twist that makes them seem new again. One of the show’s gifts is to reverse this process, with almost surgical precision.
Maybe Arya is Jaqen, or maybe the Waif is Arya, or something
I’m gonna hit fast-forward for a second here and just run you through the events of the season. After her interminable stickfighting lessons, Arya is assigned a new target: an actress named Lady Crane. Arya plans on poisoning her rum, but has second thoughts at the last minute and warns her that a rival actress wants to kill her instead.
Now, her name is mud with the Church of the Many-Faced God, and so the Waif (who viscerally hates Arya for some reason that’s never quite explained) is dispatched to kill her. Disguising herself as an old woman, she catches Arya off-guard and stabs her in the gut before Arya jumps into the river and swims off.

Right now I want to talk less about what actually happened and more about how the audience responded to it. The modern media consumer often follows a pattern: consume the media, and then go straight to the internet to argue about what’s going to happen next. From the show’s point of view, this pattern is good – it generates buzz, and keeps viewers invested. But it can backfire in a certain specific way.
Remember the Lindeloffian method? Have something happen that makes no sense, hint at a promised explanation later, and then never deliver? Using this method trains your audience to look for the twist. It’s only natural: they want to be the one that figures it out before anyone else. There’s no better feeling than that of knowing who the killer is before Poirot explains everything.That new Murder on the Orient Express movie gets Poirot’s mustauche all wrong, by the way. And nothing against Sir Kenneth Branagh, but David Suchet is the only Poirot as far as I’m concerned.
A big chunk of the audience that watched Arya’s season six storyline was (apparently) expecting a twist. They noticed, for example, the inconsistency in Arya’s behavior – at the end of one episode, she’s huddled up against a wall with her trusty sword needle, alone and afraid. In the next, she’s strolling around Braavos like she owns the place, tossing bags of coins at strangers and generally acting like there isn’t a secretive cult of assassins trying to kill her.
Then, she’s attacked, in what seems like an inept, amateurish way, and escapes into a river. Her attacker doesn’t bother to follow, despite the fact that “make sure they’re actually dead” must be the first thing they teach you at any reputable assassin school.
Seeing all this, many viewers looked for an explanation. The Faceless men/women have the ability to disguise themselves as other people, Mission Impossible-style, so could it be that the person we thought was Arya wasn’t actually Arya? Or the person we thought was the Waif wasn’t actually the Waif? The internet was abuzz with theories, each crazier than the last. The audience goodwill that the show still retains was palpable, as everyone tried to come up with an explanation for how what seemed like sloppy direction was actually a cleverly designed twist.
And then came the inevitable disappointment as everyone gradually realized that what seemed like sloppy direction was actually just sloppy direction. Arya was Arya. Jaqen was Jaqen. The Waif was the Waif. Everything was exactly as dumb as it seemed to be.

Things don’t improve from there. Arya returns to the House of Black and White to inform Jaqen that not only did she not kill the person she was supposed to kill, she also killed the person he sent to kill her for not killing the person she was supposed to kill. And of course, since Jaqen’s job is to say confusing things and smile mysteriously, he says “finally a girl is no one,” and then smiles mysteriously when Arya basically tells him she’s blowing this popsicle stand and never coming back.
Different people interpret that mysterious smile differently. Some on the internet now think that Jaqen planned all this, or at least approves of it, because the people Arya wants to kill are people he wants dead for some reason anyway, or something, and that this is all part of his plan. Look: I get it. You want to think that this show is better than it is. But for your own sake, just stop. What have we learned this season? That everything is exactly as dumb as it seems to be.
That brings us nearly to the end of Arya’s season six storyline, but there’s one more thing to cover – something that’s unexpectedly important (to me at least). Lady Crane. A character who serves as a window into the soul of this show.
Footnotes:
[1] These word counts vary according to the counting method. But the point is, GRRM’s books are very long.
[2] With the possible exception of Rocky III. Scholars are divided on whether the sequence preceding the first Clubber Lang fight constitutes a true montage.
[3] That new Murder on the Orient Express movie gets Poirot’s mustauche all wrong, by the way. And nothing against Sir Kenneth Branagh, but David Suchet is the only Poirot as far as I’m concerned.
Revisiting a Dead Engine

I wanted to take the file format of a late 90s shooter and read it in modern-day Unity. This is the result.
Was it a Hack?

A big chunk of the internet went down in October of 2016. What happened? Was it a hack?
Linux vs. Windows

Finally, the age-old debate has been settled.
The Biggest Game Ever

How did this niche racing game make a gameworld so massive, and why is that a big deal?
The Opportunity Crunch

No, brutal, soul-sucking, marriage-destroying crunch mode in game development isn't a privilege or an opportunity. It's idiocy.
Nice to see you STICKING with this series.
I think he’s FIGHTING his instincts and just keeps going.
With all due respect, he’s still portraying the image of being BLIND of some of his audience’s criticisms.
Come now, give the man a little QUARTER. It’s not like he has any STAFF helping him.
I fear this innocent pun thread might go VERY DARK PLACES.
To be fair, it can be hard to determine how representative one commenter is for the FACELESS masses.
True, we shouldn’t turn a BLIND EYE to that reality.
ARYA STARK IS BLIND HA HA
I think the reason David Suchet is the only Hercule Poirot is, in fact, because no one else can pull off the mustache like him. Seeing as I don’t watch GoT and couldn’t finish even the first book, that’s all I really have to say.
He really is an excellent Poirot, and looked just like I imagined him.
I can’t even imagine Branagh as Poirot – he’s fine as an Englishman, and even a Swede (Wallander), but Belgian? Suchet is ridiculously perfect; it’s suicide to try to follow his act.
Jaquen H’Gar really reminded me here of Yoda in the Star Wars prequels. (As pointed out in the the redlettermedia Mr Plinkett reviews).
Like prequel Yoda, he has an air of mystery and wisdom. Like prequel Yoda, he speaks in an odd, abnormal manner that sounds profound.
And – just like prequel Yoda – once you get past the veneer of wisdom and look at what he actually says, he comes across as barely knowing what the hell’s going on or what to do about it.
His reaction to Arya putting the Waif’s face in the Hall of Faces was hilarious.
Like, “Wait, what? How’s she- but I sent the Waif to kill her! And instead – she’s – they’ve – I – er…quick! Say something mysterious-sounding! Maybe she’ll just leave!”
Maybe he was thinking, “Great! That annoying woman is finally dead! If I can just persuade Arya, who is clearly too flaky to be a good assassin, to leave as well, then I can restart this whole operation with a clean slate.”
Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, only that it flows.
What?How dare they!
“To give you an idea, A Storm of Swords, which is the longest of the series, is 424,000 words. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy? 481,000.”
To be fair, it depends upon how much of the book is exposition vs. description. Tolkien used a LOT of descriptive texts in the books, which makes it easy to cover in film because “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Without trying to tip to deeply into controversial waters, the things cut from the LOTR films were more story clarity than pure time. RotK could actually have had time to introduce the Scouring of the Shire and Beregond if they had cut back the time spent on other plots that were expanded -IIRC the Battle of the Pelennor was only like 7 pages, including Eowyn’s dispatching of the Witch King. But the pacing and clarity of the movie would have been completely killed, even if the total length would have remained the same.
For a comparison, if you look at Shamus’s Witch Watch, as an example closer to this page, the book is about 90+% exposition. You’d get virtually no savings from converting to film reducing descriptive text with imagery.
Oh, and in reference to ASOIAF, one thing sorely missing from book to screen is all of the foreshadowing done through exposition. The characters are constantly referencing hundreds of characters, places, events, and quite a few of them will show up later, some of them quite prominently. Stuff like discussing Roose Bolton’s bastard, Renly showing a picture of Margaery to Ned to ask if she looks like Lyanna (who mistakenly thinks Renly’s interested in her, when Renly’s really trying to find a distraction for Robert), etc. It makes re-reading the books a surprise. No fault to the show-runners, as it’s almost impossible to do foreshadowing like that in TV or Film.
Not really impossible,but it is a different style.Introduction of characters can be done in multiple ways,from foreshadowing to flashbacks.Neither is superior,they just have different pacing that should match the rest of the work.And frankly,I think foreshadowing can work in this show.Which makes it a shame that its not used more often.
That’s why I said foreshadowing like that– you can drop all kinds of details in a book in the name of world-building while secretly mixing in foreshadowing and plot twists, but you can’t do that in film/tv due to the issues of Conservation of Detail and Checkov’s Gun (not linking to TV Tropes).
There’s also the issue of a lot more people usually have to be involved in the fore-shadowing to stick, and many actors/crew only know about the plot one episode at a time. One example I can think of where they pulled this off (don’t watch much TV) is in the first season of Agents of Shield. The show-runners knew that Agent Ward was going to be a Hydra spy from the beginning, and wanted to foreshadow it. However, they not only had to avoid the risk of leaks to protect their own show’s plot twist, but that of the much more big-budget Captain America: Winter Soldier as well. So, the writers/directors had to set up all kinds of situations where Ward would say something or act in such a manner that would be fairly innocuous at the time, but take on a second meaning if you went back and re-watched the show, and all without the actor knowing!
So, a lot more difficult.
One (two) Word(s): (HBO’s) West World Season One.
OK, more than one word, whatever.
Four words, actually.
Five if you want to be pedantic about it.
Does an acronym count as one word or three?So seven words?
I think the idea behind this whole thing was arya screwed up,wrong person got killed(or something,cant remember exactly),and then because only life can pay for life arya needed to die,but because she killed the person tasked to kill her,she settled her debt.I think,because it wasnt well delivered.
So…if an assassin of this House refuses to kill his assigned target, he can just kill some other person in order to wipe the slate clean? Is that how it works?
“So there’s good news and bad news. The bad news is, I didn’t kill Napoleon like we got paid to do. Sorry about that. The good news is, I killed Wellington instead. We’re cool, right?”
They’re like the the Valve of Assassin’s Guilds. There’s not a lot of management structure and no real goals towards profitable projects in place. Assassins are left a lot of autonomy about which people they want to kill, and management’s ok with that as long as they’re killing somebody.
“The more victims he kills, the more likely he is to get the right one.”
Also similar to Valve in that their core business has pivoted away from actually assassinating anybody, and everybody with actual talent in assassination is leaving.
To complete the analogy, now we need a new upstart assassin’s guild that’s really good at killing people but refuses to do so in secret (or while wearing armor. I don’t know. I’m having trouble shoehorning DRM into this overstretched analogy.). Anyway, the new upstarts also like raising people from the dead in order to assassinate them, if they died before the new guys had a chance to assassinate them.
I think I’m ashamed of myself now…
My take home from this is that their new core business is stick training montage.
More of a serial killer’s guild than an assassin’s guild really.
That was wonderful.
A (always)
B (be)
K (killing)!
Assassination is a volume business now!
Like I said,very poor delivery.
Though”a life for a life” can’t be all it takes, since Arya gets in trouble for killing the wrong guy on her first job. Possibly something specific about killing the person sent to kill you. Very pragmatic policy, for an assassin’s guild; you do something bad, we send an assassin after you. You kill them? You’re forgiven. We get to keep the better* of the two assassins, and you no longer have a reason to go all Mendoza and wipe out the entire guild in a firey JJAbrams explosion.
*The standard assumption in stories about assassins is that the best assassin would win in a fight. Patent nonsense, since a good assassin should never _have_ to fight, but you gotta go with the trope.
Depends on how you define “fight”.You could say that laying traps,false identities,dirty tricks,…are all part of a fight.
I’m a little confused about how you so badly managed to misspell ‘every human with even the slightest amount of sense is’ as ‘I’m’.
I’ve never watched an episode of Poirot. But my wife has watched them all multiple times, and so I’ve seen bits and pieces of the show. Even with that limited exposure I seem to have become a David Suchet fan. That man is a treasure.
Ultimately the only real way to adapt a story from one format to another is to realize that you’re actually creating an entirely new work of art that needs to stand on its own, not be propped up by the book/story/movie/whatever. The same events can occur in each, but qua artwork, they have to be treated as completely different animals. Because, hey, they are.
I really enjoy the different renditions of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy for precisely this reason: They’re aware that different mediums need to be approached differently, and they run with it. The radio plays, books, game, and movie share characters and general storylines while shifting the presentation to fit the new medium.
This is important to remember as a consumer too. I still remember being vastly disappointed in the David Lynich adaptation of Dune when it first came out, for All the Reasons. So much so that it was years before I was convinced to watch it again. When I did, I made a conscious effort to remember that this was a new story that had nothing to do with Frank Herbert, and when I did I found myself quite enjoying it on it’s own merits…
I am amazed that I’ve never seen this problem phrased so simply and eloquently before. All the recent big YA book adaptations (Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Divergent, etc.) failed to deliver a lot of key setting details/exposition/character development because of this.
I also appreciate the Neil Gaiman method (sometimes), which is to make the adaptation only similar on the surface, because what’s the point of just telling the same story twice?
This seems to be a bit like trying to have it both ways. If this was really the case, why would anyone bother adapting any story to a new medium? Why not just come up with a new story for the new medium? Otherwise, it seems like you’re trying to draw people in with the appeal of something cool from another medium, but then telling them they can’t criticize you for not living up the original because this a new and independent work. That doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.
Well, it kind of works in both ways.
On the one hand, the reason you adapt it is because the original material is already good and has an established audience. Meaning you can directly extract a lot of those qualities into the adaptation
On the other hand, you will need to change or supplement a lot about the original material in order to fit into the new medium.
What it mostly seems to come down to is that the creators need to have a very good understanding both of what was good about the original, and why it worked the way it did. Then try to preserve that core engagement when translating it into the new medium.
The weird thing is, that in the first few series, GoT was a (YMMV, obviously) good translation of the book story to the screen. It wasn’t utterly faithful to the plot; it trimmed some bits off and fleshed out some other bits, made up others – it was, in a lot of ways, its own story based more-or-less on the books.
It’s only recently, now the show’s started writing its own, original content that it’s really going downhill. The books (and earlier series) are less of a prop and more of a contrast i.e ‘look how good/coherent this show USED to be/COULD be’.
That new Murder on the Orient Express movie gets Poirot's mustauche all wrong, by the way.
Isn’t moustache (mustache) mispelled here?
Since this is a nit-picking series I feel justified in pointing out that the correct expression is “champing at the bit”
That… doesn’t seem like it makes any sense.
Doesn’t the original phrase come from riding animals and the “bit”, the riding gear you put into their mouth to control them? Which means that chomping at the bit would have been exactly what it says. Unless champing was the olden tyme way of saying “chomping”.
Basically yeah.
It doesn’t make a lot of practical difference; champing at the bit, chomping at the bit, biting at the champ, they all give the same impression of being really hungry.
Or of being Mike Tyson.
I just have to add, as an expert in biomechanics, that the actress playing Arya is noticeably very un-athletic. It makes her assassin scenes extremely hard to watch- I simply can’t suspend my disbelief. And I think that others, even without biomechanical expertise, intuitively notice this disconnect between character and actor. Ties back to the ‘gitchy’ feeling you referenced earlier in this series
It’s easy to think like that. “Everyone must see that something’s off here!”. But that feeling highly depends on your past experiences. I often think that people must notice that, no, flight does not work that way, or no, even if you have super-strength, you cannot do that while standing on slippery mud, etc. Apparently people mostly either don’t notice or don’t care.
Noticing athleticism is pretty intuitive- it doesn’t require expertise, just an eye for graceful movement. Like how schoolyard bullies always seem to know which kids to target (sadly). You’re probably right that many people wouldn’t notice this issue. But for those with some sort of physical/ athletic training, it would be pretty hard *not* to spot Arya’s spastic motions (albeit perhaps subconsciously)
“And I think that others, even without biomechanical expertise, intuitively notice this disconnect between character and actor.”
Sure, but it’s a child actor. I cut them a lot more slack than I do adult actors.
True,but with some filming trickery and clever editing,such a thing can be hidden away.
Maisie Williams is 20, now, and has been a professional actor for 5 or 6 years. At what point do you stop cutting slack?
To a degree, I’d guess never?
She was cast before she fully grew up, with the expectation that should still be in the role into her adutlhood.
That is always somewhat of a risk because while good guesses can be made, there is no guarantee that such an actor will grow to keep looking appropriate for the part, or not develop some kind of factor during puberty that would impair the performance.
On another note, though: how athletic is Arya meant to be as essentially a beggar? Yes she undergoes physical training, but the impression I got is that apart from that, she’s not actually all that well looked after or fed. Some physical fitness is expected from anyone living an active life, sure, but a superbly athletic build comes not just from training, but also from eating.
I had this problem SO much with the Sand Snakes. It doesn’t help that the plot they’re in is balderdash, and their ‘fight scenes’ seem really badly done – but they do NOT come across as combat-trained people capable of killing anyone whose back isn’t turned or isn’t buried neck-deep in sand.
To back up Daemian Lucifer, GoT has managed a similar issue well with Brienne of Tarth’s character. Gwendoline Christie is not a particularly tough-looking woman IRL (despite her size) but they got around it by making sure she’s almost never out of her armor in scenes, giving her no/very little make-up and just making her talk, act and be treated like others like a fighter.
I rememember being really taken aback during her fight with the Hound – at a couple of points she bellows like an orc in heat (while beating him in the face with a rock, no less). Totally sold ‘tough and capable of violence’ to me.
The big mistake with the sand snakes, I hear, is that that they had no fight choreographers on the Dorn set (which was in Spain, I believe?), they were all busy on the other sets. Instead, they relied on the actors of Bron and Jaime picking up the slack, but those guys didn’t have any experience in the exotic styles the sand snakes were meant to have mastered.
If that’s true, the sand snake fight scenes were literally amateur improv.