# HBO to make George R.R. Martin' SoI&F into a series...



## Viking Bastard (Jan 17, 2007)

From AICN:



			
				Herc's Coaxial News @ AICN said:
			
		

> HBO is turning  George R.R. Martin’s series of “A Song of Ice and Fire” fantasy novels  into a TV series. The plan is to adapt one novel each season, starting with 1996’s “A Game of Thrones.”
> 
> Writing the HBO version are Martin himself (who previously wrote on CBS' "Beauty and the Beast") and feature writers David Benioff (“The 25th Hour,” “Troy”) and D.B. Weiss (who authored a screenplay for the proposed “Halo” movie).
> 
> ...




GASP! GASP! GASP!

(Megagasp.)


----------



## Umbran (Jan 17, 2007)

Um, the novel series isn't _finished_ yet, and won't be any time in the near future - he's putting them out at less than one a year now.  So, if HBO does this, their TV series will go for a few seasons, and then hang there...


----------



## Klaus (Jan 17, 2007)

Between shooting and airing, I don't see A Game of Thrones (the first season of ASoI&F) airing before 2008. If they do yearly seasons, they'll have A Clash of Kings in 2009, A Storm of Swords in 2010 and A Feast For Crows in 2011. A Dance of Dragons is almost done, and should be released next year, with the TV version airing in 2012. That gives GRRM 2008-2010 to finish the remaining two books, which is quite a good time. If he does, the TV versions could air in 2013 and 2014.

Crap! 2014!!! That's science-fiction time!


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 17, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Um, the novel series isn't _finished_ yet, and won't be any time in the near future - he's putting them out at less than one a year now.  So, if HBO does this, their TV series will go for a few seasons, and then hang there...




Well, the article says Martin'll be finished in 2011 (I doubt that a great deal) but that still leaves... 

A Game of Thrones (2008) 
A Clash of Kings (2009) 
A Storm of Swords (2010) 
A Feast for Crows (2011) 
Whatever (2012)
Whatever (2013)

So, they have some wiggle room in there. 

They _just _ got the rights to it, so I doubt they'll be able to mount a production until 2008 at least.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 17, 2007)

Hmm... it seems my prediction that Martin's epic would make it to HBO is coming true.   

This is *great * news. Hopefully it'll live up to the high production values and quality that were established by previous HBO series such as _Rome_, _Deadwood _ and _The Sopranos_. _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is brutal, yes. But I'm pretty sure HBO can handle it.  

But, it still brings the question that was brought up in the thread I started back then:

Will they cast actual children in the series? :\


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 17, 2007)

Considering how much stuff goes on in the book, I'm sure they have a little bit of time before they need to start worrying about the last big of the series. They could spend an entire season on just the first book, and still have things left out.


----------



## FCWesel (Jan 17, 2007)

*HBO to do GRRMartin Fire and Ice series*

Interesting...



> Finally someone seems to be planning an idea I've had floating around in my head for a while - take a popular series of novels utilising the same characters and turn each book into a season's worth of shows.
> 
> HBO is trying that with plans to turn George R.R. Martin's bestselling fantasy series "A Song of Fire and Ice" into a drama series by David Benioff ("Troy", "Wolverine") and D.B. Weiss ("Halo").
> 
> ...




http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070117g.php


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 17, 2007)

Way back in the day, I used to think that a cable network like HBO was the only practical way for the Lord of the Rings to get produced - so this is a very cool development (even though I haven't read the books).


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 17, 2007)

> ... Martin has nearly finished the fifth of _seven_ installments.




Oh dear... And now with GRRM's involvement in this show... Not good news for those of us who'd like to see it end in our lifetimes. Just what he doesn't need, another distraction.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 17, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Hmm... it seems my prediction that Martin's epic would make it to HBO is coming true.
> 
> This is *great * news. Hopefully it'll live up to the high production values and quality that were established by previous HBO series such as _Rome_, _Deadwood _ and _The Sopranos_. _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is brutal, yes. But I'm pretty sure HBO can handle it.
> 
> ...



 The children are a problem, since the actors will age much faster than the characters.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 17, 2007)

The children may be a problem, I agree.

I could not be happier (unless my lottery ticket came in). Wow. Wow. Wow. 

Now to convince the wife we actually do need cable (which we've lived without for 12 years).


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 17, 2007)

I had to check the date, thought this was April Fool's or something.  This is awesome news....as long as George does a little more writing, and a little less touring.

We've already got Robert Jordan, who possibly may never be able to finish his last book, after we've waited so long...

Paul


----------



## Grymar (Jan 17, 2007)

So is this a good reason to start reading the series?  I always prefer to read the books before seeing a movie and I've heard good things about this series.


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 17, 2007)

Well I freaked and posted it in the wrong area.  Doh!

I wonder who they will cast for Tyrion?


----------



## Agamon (Jan 17, 2007)

Pick something.  Anything.  Got it?  Okay, _that_ is a good enough reason to read the books.

But seriously, you'll want to read them before this comes out.

And one last thing: GLEEE!


----------



## Agamon (Jan 17, 2007)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> Well I freaked and posted it in the wrong area.  Doh!
> 
> I wonder who they will cast for Tyrion?




It's HBO.  If we recognize any of the actors, I'll be surprised.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 17, 2007)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I wonder who they will cast for Tyrion?




There's two naturals, I think:

Warwick Davis

Peter Dinklage

Both are decent actors, I think.  In Threshold, Dinklage proved he can do cynical really, really well...


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 17, 2007)

Good point, although they tend to get popular afterwards.

I wouldn't worry too much about the children, if HBO's track record with cancelling shows shows anything, it probably won't get past Clash of Kings.  But I will still be happy with whatever appears.

(Sorry, I'm bitter over the recent announcement about Rome. (And Deadwood, and Carnivale))


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 17, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> There's two naturals, I think:
> 
> Warwick Davis
> 
> ...




Yeah, they could do it pretty well.  I would love to see Michael J. Anderson get the work, but he's not really what I had in mind for Tyrion.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 17, 2007)

I knew Rome was only going to be 2 seasons soon after I began watching it.  It's too bad, but it wasn't really cancelled.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 17, 2007)

From the westeros.org post board, Parris, GRRM's significant other wrote this:

Thanks X-Ray and everybody, this has been an on-off-on project for many months, and we couldn't say anything to anyone. George's email box is overflowing with notes from people who have read the news this morning. I'm waiting for the first message from somebody he worked with out in Hollywood but hasn't heard from in a decade to inquire if there's a job/script/episode they can work on.

Please remember folks, this is just an option. HBO has not 'greenlighted' pre-production, let alone hired directors, paid for the scripts to be written, set a production schedule or put it into their programming. At the least, I don't think we'll see AGoT until 2009, more likely 2010.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 17, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> There's two naturals, I think:
> 
> Warwick Davis
> 
> ...




I think Warwick is a little old for Tyrion...I mean, he's old enough to be Tywin!  Plus, there's probably a certain amount of Willow baggage.

I'm sure there are other actors of less than average height who could be used for the role....especially ones who are younger.  Isn't Tyrion the little brother, and not supposed to be older than something like 25?

Banshee


----------



## Aeric (Jan 17, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Oh dear... And now with GRRM's involvement in this show... Not good news for those of us who'd like to see it end in our lifetimes. Just what he doesn't need, another distraction.




I'm just glad to hear that it _has_ an end.  I thought it was going to be a trilogy; when Storm of Swords ended with a ton of plot threads unresolved, I despaired of my favorite fantasy saga turning into another Wheel of Time.  I need closure and I need it now!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 18, 2007)

This is bad.  GRRM doesn't need a distraction from finishing his novels ... he's far too slow as is.  We're still waiting on Book 5, which is really only the second half of book 4, and was mostly complete when Book 4 was published!

Once the novels are done, though ... great idea! (Though I predict losing 75% of their viewers after the Red Wedding.)


----------



## Grog (Jan 18, 2007)

Didn't HBO cancel Rome because it was too expensive to make? I can't see this being much cheaper....


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> This is bad.  GRRM doesn't need a distraction from finishing his novels ... he's far too slow as is.  We're still waiting on Book 5, which is really only the second half of book 4, and was mostly complete when Book 4 was published!
> 
> Once the novels are done, though ... great idea! (Though I predict losing 75% of their viewers after the Red Wedding.)




This is NOT bad. Quite the contrary to a distraction, this imposes an external deadline on GRRM.  

There is big money at stake here  - and big exposure if he does not meet the deadlines. He will be compelled to write despite any desire for a convention here there and everywhere 7 times a year. 

GRRM has been decidedly unfocused in his writing after _A Storm of Swords_ was released.  He has Hollywood pit-bull lawyers nipping at his heels now. 

He is now contractually obligated to finish the series by 2011.

Best news I've heard in a very long time. I am ecstatic.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Didn't HBO cancel Rome because it was too expensive to make? I can't see this being much cheaper....




Except HBO has a market for sales of these DVDs far, far larger than Rome's.

GRRM fans are dedicated. If they don't screw this up - they could earn double the cost of a very expensive season on just the DVD sales per year, never mind the subscription and HBO on Demand sales.

HBO looked at the LotR home video sales and saw this market.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmm. Makes me wonder why the hell we need SCI-FI channel for. Maybe HBO should buy SCI-FI and shake up the station's format (as well as its executives).


----------



## Agamon (Jan 18, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hmm. Makes me wonder why the hell we need SCI-FI channel for. Maybe HBO should buy SCI-FI and shake up the station's format (as well as its executives).



SoI&F is an HBO series, not a Sci-Fi series.  HBO will do it right, Sci-Fi...I'd be very afraid if they were doing it...


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

One problem with the series....

Over the course of the first four books - the children have aged perhaps two years. Might be a touch less.

Over the first four seasons of a series - the children will age four years.  That is not going to be possible to hide. They are either have to going to film in sequence FAST (they won't = cashflow is a problem) or they will have to re-write in a way to accommodate this.

Looks like we may get a five year gap, so to speak (not really five yearsm but..) after all.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 18, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> One problem with the series....
> 
> Over the course of the first four books - the children have aged perhaps two years. Might be a touch less.
> 
> ...




That's fairly minor.  Maybe get kids that are a year younger than the character they play, and by the 4th book, they'll only look a year older, and a year is often hard to tell anyway.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 18, 2007)

Great news. I have a feeling certain characters will be cut out for various reasons so some fans will be disappointed.

Spoilers here 



Spoiler



I imagine the incest portion would make everyone squiemish, but it worked for Rome. 





			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> One problem with the series....
> 
> Over the course of the first four books - the children have aged perhaps two years. Might be a touch less.
> 
> ...




Harry Potter movies are managing, for now.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 18, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Great news. I have a feeling certain characters will be cut out for various reasons so some fans will be disappointed.
> 
> Spoilers here
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I'm pretty sure they'll include that bit. This is cable TV after all, they can get away with anything. 

EDIT: Oh, almost forgot. I have some casting suggestions, first up one who could play the perfect Tyrion:









For those not in the know, that's Gee Williams, whom you may remember as Bijaz in _Children of Dune_. He's not that well known, in fact on IMDB _Children of Dune_ is his only film credit! So maybe HBO could cast him in the role of everyone's favorite cynical little man.  

As for Cersei, well how about everyone's favorite Cylon seductress? Tell me she isn't perfect for the part:


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Great news. I have a feeling certain characters will be cut out for various reasons so some fans will be disappointed.
> 
> Spoilers here
> 
> ...




Harry Potter is different. There are seven books - each intended to take place over the span of seven years.  To be filmed over the span of seven years.

Even still, when they fell behind a tad on filming - the alarming change after puberty of actor Rupert Grint (who plays Ron Weasley and seemed to age 3 years on film in just 1) convinced WB to get aggressive on filming in succession before Rupert Grint looked 25 by series end.

And that's with a horde of money and a script that is _intended_ to age the child actors seven years, over seven years.

Does the answer change if the script calls for the aging of child actors 3 years (book time) over seven years (film time)?

It's not a small point. I think they will have to change the story assumptions in ASoiaF to accommodate it.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> This is NOT bad. Quite the contrary to a distraction, this imposes an external deadline on GRRM.
> 
> There is big money at stake here  - and big exposure if he does not meet the deadlines. He will be compelled to write despite any desire for a convention here there and everywhere 7 times a year.
> 
> ...




Didn't the quote from his partner say that this is only an *option*?  If it's only an option, then there's actually no impetus for him to finish writing.  Sure, if they greenlight it, that'll change, but aside from that, I'm not sure how this will make him work any quicker.

Banshee


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Didn't the quote from his partner say that this is only an *option*?  If it's only an option, then there's actually no impetus for him to finish writing.  Sure, if they greenlight it, that'll change, but aside from that, I'm not sure how this will make him work any quicker.
> 
> Banshee




No - they bought the rights. They did not take out a mere option.

They could choose to cancel production - but they bought the rights just the same. GRRM acknowledged they closed the deal and are cutting cheques for this.

Seeing as they have producers and exec producers hired and are going into pre-production - this looks like it will happen.

No guarantees - but not a mere option.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 18, 2007)

*re*

I wonder how they will handle Daenerys. That should be interesting. 

I think Martin is stretching himself thin. I don't know how he will get the books done while writing for a T.V. series. But maybe he'll pull it off.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 18, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> SoI&F is an HBO series, not a Sci-Fi series.  HBO will do it right, Sci-Fi...I'd be very afraid if they were doing it...



Maybe if SCI-FI stop limiting themselves to just science-fiction genre, they might be in a better position.

That and a sweeping employment change in the upper-level creative management and programming executive pool.

*still waiting for SCI-FI's suits to pull their heads out of the elephant's hemorrhagic ass*


----------



## Tiberius (Jan 18, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Maybe if SCI-FI stop limiting themselves to just science-fiction genre, they might be in a better position.




*blink, blink*

So, just to be clear, you're suggesting that the *Sci-Fi* channel is too focused on science fiction? Its stated purpose is for sci-fi material.


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 18, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> *blink, blink*
> 
> So, just to be clear, you're suggesting that the *Sci-Fi* channel is too focused on science fiction? Its stated purpose is for sci-fi material.





I would say that they are too focused on BAD Science fiction.  They need to stop wasting money on thier straight-to-nooone-watching-movies like Mansquito.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jan 18, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No - they bought the rights. They did not take out a mere option.
> 
> They could choose to cancel production - but they bought the rights just the same. GRRM acknowledged they closed the deal and are cutting cheques for this.
> 
> ...



Where does it say they're going into pre-production? Martin's SO specifically says they're not. In Hollywoodspeak you acquire the option to make a film or series from a book, and you pay money for being the only person/company who has the option to make a film or series from that book. People get paid. Authors make hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars from options, options that never turn into films. His SO specifically says it's an option on his messageboards: where do you get that it's not an option?


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 18, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> (Though I predict losing 75% of their viewers after the Red Wedding.)




No kidding. I had to put down the book for a day or two after that. Spoilers: When you read that part a second time Martin practically screams ambush at you, but the first time it's like you won't let yourself believe it will actually happen. It's kind of like the execution in AGoT - it really shocks you the first time.

Hopefully this will get Martin in gear to finish this series. AFfC took forever to come out and I'm eagerly anticipating ADwD.


----------



## RaceBannon42 (Jan 18, 2007)

This is exciting news. HBO has the ability to really do this right.

Now, As I understand from reading George's Blog, and Parris's post is that   nothing had been greenlit.  In this case the option is the purchase of the rights. Nothing is assured of being made.  Personally I emailed HBO yestrday to congratulate them on the move, and to encourage the development of the show. If you want to see this made, I'd suggest that contacting HBO and expressing your support for the product would be a good idea. 

As to how this might impact the completion of ASOIAF I don't know.  It gets done when it gets done. George is certainly capable of turning out a great novel every two years as evidenced by books 1-3. He is also capable of getting stuck and turning  out a novel that needed to be split in 5 years time. I expect that ADWD will come out within a year. late 2007  at the earliest, possibly 2008  wrapping the last two books in two years a piece is doable making the 2011 timeframe  seem possible, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

From what I understand, this should take a huge amount of time, He will be an executive producer, which can be a small time commitment. He is also commited to screenwrite one episode of season 1, not the whole season, so the time commitment should not be excessive.
He does have experience in writting for Hollywood from his Beauty and the Beast days. 

Anyway I think the positives of this development far outweigh any possible negatives, and I am incredibly excited about this.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 18, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Where does it say they're going into pre-production? Martin's SO specifically says they're not. In Hollywoodspeak you acquire the option to make a film or series from a book, and you pay money for being the only person/company who has the option to make a film or series from that book. People get paid. Authors make hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars from options, options that never turn into films. His SO specifically says it's an option on his messageboards: where do you get that it's not an option?




Because when books or scripts get "optioned", they are preserved by a studio for a brief period of time to consider whether or not they will acquire the rights on an exclusive basis.

That is a mere option.  It is a legal exclusive interest which gives Party A the exclusive option to buy something from Party B during the term of the option.

Mere options happen all the time anytime anyone reviews a script and they are hardly newsworthy. Options are somtimes paid for, but it is unusual to pay a lot for them.

When you buy the rights, you buy them either outright or for a period of time, within which the licensed property must be filmed or the rights revert back to the author.  Some people call this an option - but that isn't what it is. That's a rights acquisition for an agreed sum which may be defeasible on the happening of an event (failure to release a film by 2011, say)- a very different sort of deal than a mere option.

I think DragonLance must have been optioned a dozen times before a movie deal was finally signed last year.

The purchase of rights - which is what has happened in this case, is not a mere option. It does not necessarily commit the studio to production - but it is not a mere option.  GRRM notes that the deal for the rights closed a few days back. 

There is a distinction on a legal and customary basis as to what a mere option is  - and this isn't one.  GRRM is committed to write an episode and to exec-produce. That is not a mere option.  If George happens to call it that on his website in the subject line of his blog post - - sorry George, that isn't what an _option_ is.

When writers and producers and exec producers for a project have been hired and they are looking for shooting locations - that's called pre-production.

It is not only casting and spending money on costumes, props and sets - which is what you may have come to think pre-production is. While that is pre-production as well - that does not make the current explorations any less steps in the pre-production process.

People get too involved with the term "greenlit".  What is meant by greenlighting is that project funds are supplied for casting, principal photography, physical assets and post-production costs.  That's greenlighting. 

Sometimes it comes in stages. Weta Workshop created a boatload of propos and costumes before the movie itself was greenlit for actual casting and photography. The practice varies from film to film. 

Greenlighting does not mean a mere commitment of money committed for pre-production exploration, expected casting costs, basic scripts and budget exploration.  That's a separate set of costs authorized in film production without committing to _actual_ production.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 18, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Because when books or scripts get "optioned", they are preserved by a studio for a brief period of time to consider whether or not they will acquire the rights on an exclusive basis.




False.  There is nothing specifically brief about an option.  It can last decades.  Usually it's one to two years.  And an option IS an acquistion to rights on an exclusive basis, for a period of time.  That's the point of an option.



> That is a mere option.  It is a legal exclusive interest which gives Party A the exclusive option to buy something from Party B during the term of the option.
> 
> Mere options happen all the time anytime anyone reviews a script and they are hardly newsworthy. Options are somtimes paid for, but it is unusual to pay a lot for them.




False.  Options are always paid for (or some other consideration must be given), and it is not unusual to pay a lot for them.  Sometimes it's only a few thousand, but often it's a LOT more.



> When you buy the rights, you buy them either outright or for a period of time, within which the licensed property must be filmed or the rights revert back to the author.  Some people call this an option - but that isn't what it is.




False, that is usually what it is.  With an option, you are buying a set of rights for a period of time.



> That's a rights acquisition for an agreed sum which may be defeasible on the happening of an event (failure to release a film by 2011, say)- a very different sort of deal than a mere option.




That is precisely what many options are.



> I think DragonLance must have been optioned a dozen times before a movie deal was finally signed last year.
> 
> The purchase of rights - which is what has happened in this case, is not a mere option. It does not necessarily commit the studio to production - but it is not a mere option.  GRRM notes that the deal for the rights closed a few days back.




An option is in fact a deal for the rights.  You may pay MORE later, but you are paying for a right.



> There is a distinction on a legal and customary basis as to what a mere option is  - and this isn't one.




It probably is.  I'd have to see the actual agreement, but the language used for this sounds like it's an option.  Until there is a fully functioning and approved screenplay, it's probably just an option.



> GRRM is committed to write an episode and to exec-produce. That is not a mere option.  If George happens to call it that on his website in the subject line of his blog post - - sorry George, that isn't what an _option_ is.




An agreement to produce, and an agreement to write, are different agreements.  That doesn't mean this isn't an option, however.  It also does not mean that the agreement to write and produce were not contingent agreements on the future exercise of an option.  In fact, usually with a book-based option it IS contingent on a screenplay being written.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 18, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> No kidding. I had to put down the book for a day or two after that. Spoilers: When you read that part a second time Martin practically screams ambush at you, but the first time it's like you won't let yourself believe it will actually happen. It's kind of like the execution in AGoT - it really shocks you the first time.
> 
> Hopefully this will get Martin in gear to finish this series. AFfC took forever to come out and I'm eagerly anticipating ADwD.



 Not only that, but 



Spoiler



the way the Freys treated Robb's corpse afterwards, killing Gray Wind, chopping off both their heads and sewing Grey Wind's head on Robb's neck. God, I hope they suffer long and hard!


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 18, 2007)

To Klaus: I have a feeling they will suffer. Martin mentions how sacred the guest right is so many times and how noone before the Freys would dare break it. I just have a feeling that something bad will be visited among those involved. Also, it seems like everyone in this series gets theirs at some point. Even the Lannisters, who were doing great for the first two and a half books, eventually got theirs. The clock is ticking for the Freys.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 18, 2007)

Can we stop the hidden spoilers?  This isn't a "no spoilers" thread.  If you came to this thread, odds are you already read the books or don't care.  Just post the darn text like normal!


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 19, 2007)

Sorry man, just didn't want to spoil stuff for those that haven't read.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 19, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> False.  There is nothing specifically brief about an option.  It can last decades.  Usually it's one to two years.  And an option IS an acquistion to rights on an exclusive basis, for a period of time.  That's the point of an option.
> 
> *snip*




No, it isn't. An option is an exclusive right to purchase the rights during the term of the option. It isn't the purchase of the right itself.

You're pretty strong on the declaratory "falses". You are in LA. Do you work in the entertainment law business? 

I'm in Toronto - been practicing for 12 years - and I do.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 19, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> *blink, blink*
> 
> So, just to be clear, you're suggesting that the *Sci-Fi* channel is too focused on science fiction? Its stated purpose is for sci-fi material.



Oh, really?  :\ 

I didn't noticed that SCI-FI Original Mini-Series _Legend of Earthsea_ is based on a sci-fi novel.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The children are a problem, since the actors will age much faster than the characters.




They can use CGI children


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jan 19, 2007)

*The Red Wedding*

Well, I just got to this chapter last night. I knew it was coming though, but you're right it did scream "ambush" from the get go.

I have to admit, even knowing what was coming, it was shocking. I hadn't realized just how complete a betrayal it was until I reached the end of the chapter. 

God I hate Walder Frey.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 19, 2007)

Martin shocks you with just how brutal his world is. He has often said that he wanted his readers to understand that he is playing for keeps, and he accomplishes that. I've never gotten the feeling that certain characters are safe, even though you figure Jon, Dany, Bran, Arya, etc aren't going to get it you still don't know. To me, this is one of the best parts of that series. When you pick up a book in this series you have to wonder who is going to live and die, and you don't really know. Not to throw stones at WoT but I've never had that feeling in those books. The one major character Jordan killed off didn't really die and will be back soon. 

I'm kind of mixed in my feelings about this. On one hand I like this series so much I would really like to see it in live action format. It would be great to see some of these great moments like the Red Wedding, the Battle of Blackwater, the sack of Winterfell, etc. On the other hand it is going to be difficult. There are so many characters, so many houses, and so much going on which will make it tough on the audience. Also, the whole story is told from first person POV, in which one of the key elements is seeing the world through the various biased viewpoints. We initially see some characters as purely evil and later learn that not everything is as it seems and our initial judgement of them was because that was what the POV character saw and thought. I do hope it happens and if anyone can pull this off it is HBO, but I also have reservations as well. One thing I hope is that the SoIaF fanboys are more mature than the LoTR fanboys were and gives this thing a fair shot. So many of the true hardcore Tolkien fanatics didn't even give the movies a chance before blasting them. People are still bitching about no Tom in Fellowship.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jan 19, 2007)

I think the thing that upset me most (strangely) was Dacey Mormount's death. There's just something about the fact that she was out of her armor and dancing that just made the whole thing more horrible to me. Plus, it was her invitation to one of the Frey's to dance that started the whole denoument.

For a split second, I actually thought she'd escape, even though it was clear that everyone in the hall was doomed.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jan 19, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Also, the whole story is told from first person POV, in which one of the key elements is seeing the world through the various biased viewpoints. We initially see some characters as purely evil and later learn that not everything is as it seems and our initial judgement of them was because that was what the POV character saw and thought.



Deadwood did a great job with this with the Al Swearengen character, who comes across as just entirely nasty for the entire first season, but who we see other sides of -- that he can even be good, despite remaining brutal -- in the second. Good precedent on HBO, and I certainly think it could work the same way with Martin's characters if written well.


----------



## RaceBannon42 (Jan 19, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Deadwood did a great job with this with the Al Swearengen character, who comes across as just entirely nasty for the entire first season, but who we see other sides of -- that he can even be good, despite remaining brutal -- in the second. Good precedent on HBO, and I certainly think it could work the same way with Martin's characters if written well.




Yep. I've even remarked to others that Al got the Jamie Lannister treatment. 

As for the Martin Fanboys... The response at the ASOIAF board has been pretty positive. More than anything  most of us are happy for George. Sure there are worries, but even if it turns out to suck, it won't diminsh the books in any way.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 19, 2007)

RaceBannon42 said:
			
		

> Sure there are worries, but even if it turns out to suck, it won't diminsh the books in any way.




I think that is what bothered me the most about the hardcore Tolkienites attitude toward the LoTR movies. Like 'em or dislike 'em, they didn't hurt Tolkien's books in way, form, or fashion, but rather they brought interest from people who had never read or heard of the books and renewed interest in those that hadn't read the work in years. Nearly 50 years after LoTR was published there was all this exposure and this feeling of newness. If this series does materialize it will bring some attention to Martin's work, and invariably some people will pick up the books that might not have otherwise.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I think that is what bothered me the most about the hardcore Tolkienites attitude toward the LoTR movies. Like 'em or dislike 'em, they didn't hurt Tolkien's books in way, form, or fashion, but rather they brought interest from people who had never read or heard of the books and renewed interest in those that hadn't read the work in years. Nearly 50 years after LoTR was published there was all this exposure and this feeling of newness. If this series does materialize it will bring some attention to Martin's work, and invariably some people will pick up the books that might not have otherwise.



Still, it has to be done right to captivate the viewing audience as much as the literary audience. We're lucky that PJ did _LOTR_ right, despite Tolkien Purists' criticisms. Had the Beatles done it, it would have about as disastrous as _Bloodrayne._


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I think that is what bothered me the most about the hardcore Tolkienites attitude toward the LoTR movies. Like 'em or dislike 'em, they didn't hurt Tolkien's books in way, form, or fashion, but rather they brought interest from people who had never read or heard of the books and renewed interest in those that hadn't read the work in years. Nearly 50 years after LoTR was published there was all this exposure and this feeling of newness. If this series does materialize it will bring some attention to Martin's work, and invariably some people will pick up the books that might not have otherwise.



See, this is why I'm not a member of any messageboard devoted exclusively to all things Tolkien. In most cases you're bound to find a number Tolkien *purists * who hold the movies in contempt and worship the books as some sort of sacred text. And anytime you try to defend the movies to these people they just respond with so called intellectual arguments but are really just snobbery in disguise. It's bloody fanboy elitism at it's worst, and I hate that. 

So, as for the concerns to whether the ASOIAF series will remain faithful to the books, I don't think fans need to worry. HBO has done daring progamming before, and are willing to do stuff that conventional TV would never even dream of doing. It's safe to say that they're the only ones capable of translating the brutality and harshness of Martin's world.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 20, 2007)

Oh, I agree that it has to be done right. It has to capture the main spirit of the book(s). My main point is some folks don't ever give a movie a chance. As Horace said, there are a large number of fans that hold the text to be some sacred entity and go as far as saying the movies shouldn't even be allowed to have the name LoTR on them.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 20, 2007)

Remus Lupin said:
			
		

> Well, I just got to this chapter last night. I knew it was coming though, but you're right it did scream "ambush" from the get go.
> 
> I have to admit, even knowing what was coming, it was shocking. I hadn't realized just how complete a betrayal it was until I reached the end of the chapter.
> 
> God I hate Walder Frey.




You and me both.  Hopefully he gets drawn and quartered.  I'd like to read about him dying in severe pain.

There is some justice in the books.  That's all I'll say 

Banshee


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. An option is an exclusive right to purchase the rights during the term of the option. It isn't the purchase of the right itself.
> 
> You're pretty strong on the declaratory "falses". You are in LA. Do you work in the entertainment law business?
> 
> I'm in Toronto - been practicing for 12 years - and I do.




You seem to be reading more into what I wrote...well, then what I wrote.  The right to purchase a right is, itself, a right.  It's one of several rights that come with an option.  Exclusivity is another right.  The right to shop a property is also a typical right that comes with an option, as is the right to confidentiality.  When I said an option is the purchase of rights...those are some of the rights I was referring.  What exactly are you disagreeing with there?

Yes, I am an entertainment lawyer, in Hollywood, married to an actress, with entertainment clients.  And I have been a lawyer longer than you have, for what it is worth.  I was hoping to not make this a personal issue, and just discuss the topic without thwacking out credentials on the table...

Fast Learner, who also spoke up on this issue, is also a lawyer I believe.

Perhaps Canadian law differs on this subject, I don't know.  But what I wrote was accurate, which is why I was pretty strong on the declaratory "falses". Sorry if it came across too strong, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people misquote the law as if it's a D&D game rule that is merely a matter of opinion and lay interpretation.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 20, 2007)

I'd like to get into this, but honestly I've been more than a little bit cynical of HBO.

For one, I think they're trying too hard to get their next smash-hit, a la Sex And The City or The Sopranos (and to a lesser extent Six Feet Under).  I have no doubt that the costs to make SoI&F would be staggering, just like Rome, and superficially the settings are similar.  Yet Rome was recently confirmed as not coming back for a third season.  So unless it would make quite a bit of profit, I don't really see it happening.

For another, while HBO does put out some very good stuff, it seems they take forever to get it done, especially in recent years.  It was fourteen months from the end of Season 1 of Rome to the beginning of Season 2.  For The Sopranos, the time in between seasons was even longer - sixteen between 3-4 and 4-5, and twenty-one between 5-6.  The Wire has had similar gaps in its last few seasons, as did Carnivale between its two seasons.  I would tend to expect similar here, and I'm not a fan of that.

Still, I'm hoping that it can get made, even if it's just the first book.  It would be cool to see HBO tackle a fantasy series (er, Carnivale not withstanding), and if it gets Martin more exposure, that's great too.


----------



## Berandor (Jan 20, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I'd like to get into this, but honestly I've been more than a little bit cynical of HBO.
> 
> For another, while HBO does put out some very good stuff, it seems they take forever to get it done, especially in recent years.  It was fourteen months from the end of Season 1 of Rome to the beginning of Season 2.  For The Sopranos, the time in between seasons was even longer - sixteen between 3-4 and 4-5, and twenty-one between 5-6.  The Wire has had similar gaps in its last few seasons, as did Carnivale between its two seasons.  I would tend to expect similar here, and I'm not a fan of that.



If anything, that is even more in favor of HBO doing George Martin. They work alike!


----------



## SecondTime (Jan 20, 2007)

I expect this, if it does get made, to basically be Rome set in the middle ages, with perhaps fewer sets and a much reduced cast to control costs. Expect heavy rewriting. 

Its themes are very much in keeping with those of other HBO shows, i.e. it tends to skewer the romantic notions people have about the past, whether ancient or recent (Rome/Deadwood), but with some manifistation of the hopes the masses hold in the supernatural poking around in the periphery (Carnival). This means it might come off as formulaic, i.e. a stererotypical HBO/BBC/PBS costume drama.

On a plus note, some good but poorly paid british actors and actresses are inevitably going to get more work. A BBC collaboration? Maybe, though I doubt there is a huge audience for this amongst the brits, though it might be more popular with american anglophiles.


----------



## SecondTime (Jan 20, 2007)

That being said, I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 20, 2007)

Meh. If you ask me, we need a network that specifically caters to two (not one) genres: science fiction and fantasy fiction. Screw SCI-FI.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 21, 2007)

*re*



			
				horacethegrey said:
			
		

> See, this is why I'm not a member of any messageboard devoted exclusively to all things Tolkien. In most cases you're bound to find a number Tolkien *purists * who hold the movies in contempt and worship the books as some sort of sacred text. And anytime you try to defend the movies to these people they just respond with so called intellectual arguments but are really just snobbery in disguise. It's bloody fanboy elitism at it's worst, and I hate that.
> 
> So, as for the concerns to whether the ASOIAF series will remain faithful to the books, I don't think fans need to worry. HBO has done daring progamming before, and are willing to do stuff that conventional TV would never even dream of doing. It's safe to say that they're the only ones capable of translating the brutality and harshness of Martin's world.




This is pretty irritating. The LotR movies were badly done in many areas and ruined quite a few characters. The only place where Peter Jackson really hit the nail on the head is with the special effects, but he did a poor job on most of the really key scenes in the film. Not only did they diverge from the text, but they also made no sense in the movie itself or lacked the emotional impact of the text.

I bought the extended edition of all three movies. I really enjoyed them when they first came out. But after multiple viewings, I became more and more dissatisfied with the final product until I gave them away. They just weren't well done and had glaring logic problems with plot and character beyond the differences between the book and movie. 

I don't mind that people enjoy the movies. Just don't argue that they are better or equal to the books with all the problems that even a halfway intelligent viewer could find with the plot and character inconsistencies. I for one am happy that Peter Jackson is not doing _The Hobbit_, then I might have to watch another Tolkien work bastardized because a director with a poor sense of storytelling has a great eye for visual effects.


I very much doubt that ASoIaF will have the same problem as the LotR with the fans. Tolkien fans more than likely have a different basis for judging the books than Martin fans, at least the purists like myself. I very much like the morality in LotR as much as I like the story itself. The movies at times obfuscated the value systems of the cultures presented in the books, which was very troubling to me. I won't have that same type of investment in ASoIaF, because morality is relative to the situation or nonexistent.

 My main concern is how will they handle the sometimes extreme material in ASoIaF. The pedofilia alone with Daenerys will offend modern sensibilities, even though in the time a 14 year old girl having relations was not uncommon.  Also what happens to Bran will deeply offend most, as harming children is viewed poorly. It will be difficult for them to redeem Jamie as effectively as the book in a visual medium IMO. 

Martin definitely has alot of stong themes involving children. I'm going to enjoy seeing how HBO handles this kind of material. It should be interesting. Can you imagine the graphic _Red Wedding_ scene on the screen? You know they would show it. Just talking about it as they did in the book wouldn't capture the scene, though I guess they could do a flashback sequence. I'm looking forward to a ASoIaF being brought to the film medium. Should be interesting.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2007)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is pretty irritating....I don't mind that people enjoy the movies. Just don't argue that they are better or equal to the books with all the problems that even a halfway intelligent viewer could find with the plot and character inconsistencies. I for one am happy that Peter Jackson is not doing _The Hobbit_, then I might have to watch another Tolkien work bastardized because a director with a poor sense of storytelling has a great eye for visual effects.




In my opinion the movies are equal to the books.  I am a halfway intelligent viewer or better, and I do not find the plot and character inconsistencies that you do.  

I understand and appreciate your perspective on those movies.  But when you start telling people what they should not argue about those films, or that they are not halfway intelligent viewers if they don't agree with your viewpoint, I think you have crossed a line that is better suited to a board like http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/ .  It's a directly aggressive stance you are taking that could easily be interpreted as insulting.

And by the way, in my opinion Peter Jackson has a better than 50% chance of making the Hobbit.  I think based on recent news on that subject, you will see that the odds seem to be that New Line will lose the rights to the film due to delay on exercising their option, and that it will default back to the rights owner who plans on doing it with Jackson.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 21, 2007)

Nobody is saying the movies are equal to or better than the book. The movies are a good adaption of the book. But I wasn't even arguing that. My whole point was there were a large number of purists who never gave the movie a chance. Some people hold the book in such high regard that they cannot stand anyone else interpreting Tolkien's work and putting the name LoTR on the final product. I'm hoping that the SoIaF fanbase isn't he same way if the HBO series comes together. If it sucks then it should be blasted, but give it a good shot.
It isn't going to be exactly like the books.


I personally like the LoTR movies. I also enjoy the book and think it was one of the greatest acheivements in literature during the 20th century. I've also read the Silmarillion and the Hobbit and liked both of those as well. Tolkien truly created a world in every respect, something few other authors can claim. However, I completely understood that Jackson was going to have to change some things to make a movie work and appeal to a wide audience. He made some unnecessary changes also, and some of those do kind of bother me when I watch, but they don't detract from the viewing experience. About emotional impact, the movies are dripping with emotion. When Sam delivers his "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you" line it gives me chills. One thing the movies had in spades was emotion. I don't think a better job could have been done adapting LoTR. For Return of the King to win Best Picture and all three movies to have appealed to such a large audience was simply amazing.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying the movies are equal to or better than the book.




Correction.  I am saying the movies were equal to the book.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2007)

Double post


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 21, 2007)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> My main concern is how will they handle the sometimes extreme material in ASoIaF. The pedofilia alone with Daenerys will offend modern sensibilities, even though in the time a 14 year old girl having relations was not uncommon.  Also what happens to Bran will deeply offend most, as harming children is viewed poorly. It will be difficult for them to redeem Jamie as effectively as the book in a visual medium IMO.



With warning and either a MA or TV14 rating. Not like HBO haven't been down this road before.

Let's face it, this is the kind of fantasy story you DO NOT want to read to your kids at bedtime.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 21, 2007)

I can't wait for this one. I hope they do it justice.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 21, 2007)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is pretty irritating. The LotR movies were badly done in many areas and ruined quite a few characters. The only place where Peter Jackson really hit the nail on the head is with the special effects, but he did a poor job on most of the really key scenes in the film. Not only did they diverge from the text, but they also made no sense in the movie itself or lacked the emotional impact of the text.
> 
> I bought the extended edition of all three movies. I really enjoyed them when they first came out. But after multiple viewings, I became more and more dissatisfied with the final product until I gave them away. They just weren't well done and had glaring logic problems with plot and character beyond the differences between the book and movie.
> 
> ...



 "Irritating" right back at ya, because I find the LotR movies to be FAR more enjoyable than the books (and I read all three before the movies came out). I have the theatrical and extended releases (and I like the opening sequence for FotR better in the theatrical version, as opposed to Bilbo's narration). I think Faramir in the movie is a FAR better character than the book one, flaws and all, just to name one.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 21, 2007)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is pretty irritating. The LotR movies were badly done in many areas and ruined quite a few characters. *The only place where Peter Jackson really hit the nail on the head is with the special effects, but he did a poor job on most of the really key scenes in the film.* Not only did they diverge from the text, but they also made no sense in the movie itself or lacked the emotional impact of the text.



 :\ Only the special effects, huh? Hunh, that's funny. I guess the fantastic production design, haunting musical score, excellent screenplay and fine editing must have flown right by you, huh? Or were you just focusing attention on the FX and not on the other positive elements of the films, each of which has earned rave reviews and won awards at one time or another?



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> I don't mind that people enjoy the movies. *Just don't argue that they are better or equal to the books with all the problems that even a halfway intelligent viewer could find with the plot and character inconsistencies.*



WOW. I must say I find that quite insulting. So you're saying any person who likes the movies more than the book is a *moron*? No don't answer that.

Listen, I never stated that the movies were better than the books, I merely expressed my disatisfaction with the hardline Tolkien elitist fanboys who unfairly regard the films as dreck and are unwilling to accept the opinions of those who did like the films. You want my opinion? Well I still like the book better than the movies, despite my love for the latter. And I don't see the need to insult those who disagree with me by saying their intelligence is lacking. That would be snobbery. 



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> I for one am happy that Peter Jackson is not doing The Hobbit, then I might have to watch another Tolkien work bastardized because a director with a poor sense of storytelling has a great eye for visual effects



Just so you know, a director can only be accused of being a bad storyteller if the film loses the plot halfway, characters are underdeveloped, and has no sense of pacing. These were problems I did not encounter in the whole of the LOTR trilogy, so I fail to see what you're going on about. Maybe you think he's just a bad storyteller because he failed to translate the holy text word for word, no?

Anyways, I've gotten way off base now with this ranting, so I'll stop right here so the discussion can go back to ASOIAF. Apologies.


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Jan 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Correction.  I am saying the movies were equal to the book.




Well, you're wrong.  

Seriously though, they're different mediums.  The books are more in depth, but the pacing is horrible.  The movies had much better pacing and good character development, but they don't contain the same depth and history of Middle Earth.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 21, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With warning and either a MA or TV14 rating. Not like HBO haven't been down this road before.
> 
> Let's face it, this is the kind of fantasy story you DO NOT want to read to your kids at bedtime.




Darn straight. I don't think any of us want a kidified PG13 version of SoIF.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jan 21, 2007)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> The books are more in depth, but the pacing is horrible.  The movies had much better pacing and good character development, but they don't contain the same depth and history of Middle Earth.




Very well put.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 22, 2007)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Well, you're wrong.
> 
> Seriously though, they're different mediums.  The books are more in depth, but the pacing is horrible.  The movies had much better pacing and good character development, but they don't contain the same depth and history of Middle Earth.



AFAIC, the book shouldn't be _the_ screenplay or _the_ script for a motion picture medium. Even JRR Tolkiens himself once mentioned that.

A book can go in-depth because the reader can set the pace of his reading. That's why film novelizations (usually based on the first production script ... minus rewrites during shooting as well as post-production editing) tend to have more than what shown in the final film product. You can't do that with a 2-plus-hour feature-length film. And _LOTR_ is actually one book comprised of three acts (a book publisher's decision, not Tolkiens).


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 27, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No - they bought the rights. They did not take out a mere option.
> 
> They could choose to cancel production - but they bought the rights just the same. GRRM acknowledged they closed the deal and are cutting cheques for this.
> 
> ...




Confirmed from a source at the New York Comic Con who went to the panel with Martin this weekend:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=189462



> He confirmed his "deal" with HBO and the Song of Fire & Ice books. Basically all he said was, *it was "optioned"* which in Hollywood terms doesn't mean much of anything. The good news is, the way he explained it to us, was that the prime time networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) may option like 100 TV shows every year. Out of those 100, maybe 10 will have pilot episodes made, and out of those 10 pilot episodes, maybe 3 will make it.
> 
> With HBO, he said they don't throw money around like the other networks, so they may have 5 shows optioned, 3 pilots made, and 1 show makes it on the air. Basically what he was getting at once, since HBO optioned it, there is a very good chance it will happen. He also said that don't expect anything major to happen (such as a pilot episode) for at least a year.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 28, 2007)

No, the option means HBO get first bid for the screenplay, something G.R.R. Martin has to provide before the option agreement deadline is passed. May not mean nothing but it's the first step.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 12, 2007)

Apologies for bringing up this old thread, despite having no real news about the series at all, but I had get this off my chest. 

Does anyone think that Gerard Butler(whom you've probably all seen as Leonidas in _300_) would make the perfect Eddard Stark?

Here's a pic of him as Beowulf from _Beowulf and Grendel_:






And of course, as Leonidas from _300_:





And here's another pic from him, but I don't know from where (apologies for not posting it as an image, as it's too big):
http://users.telenet.be/k-film/timeline gerard butler.jpg


----------



## ssampier (Mar 12, 2007)

I can see him holding Ice.


----------

