Game of Thrones CGI | Hacker News Reader

Game of Thrones CGI

all-things-andy-gavin.com

210 pointsagavin67 comments

This might be obvious, but this show is excellent, and if you haven't watched it yet, don't watch this video until you have, as there are some major spoilers.

I expected to like it - I really liked Rome, also from HBO - but Game of Thrones fell completely flat for me. Somehow the directing/acting/script just didn't produce much emotion or attachment to the characters from me. There were some interesting scenes here and there, but overall, it was a bit like The Pacific (I loved Band of Brothers and expected to love Pacific too (I read the biographies on which it is based), but it fell completely flat for me.

But I can't hold it against HBO. I love Treme (by David Simon, who also did my favorite show, The Wire) and Boardwalk Empire is pretty good.

I'm actually curious to know if it's just me. Anyone else expected to like GoT but ended up not liking it? The dwarf character was great, but even he couldn't save that show for me.

The show is really for people who have read the books. It is accurate to the first novel and even contains a significant amount of dialog from it, but it doesn't frame things as well as George Martin's writing can. I especially noticed this watching the show with my wife (who has not read the books) and having to continually explain things to her that were obviously lacking in the show. Many of the characters actions and some events only seem aligned with the characters if you understand them from the novels.

In short, it lacks the depth that the books provide. This is probably true of most adaptations, but because they appear to be keeping as closely to the book as possible; it is much more noticeable.

As an aside, the Wire is my all time favorite television show.

I watched the season without knowing anything about the books and expected not to like it at all, as swords/sandals/fantasy isn't my thing. I was immediately hooked on the first episode and am now reading the first book.

To be honest though, I know I'm getting old as the level of non-sensical sex in the show put me off a bit.

Tyrion for the win.

HBO has always included a substantial amount of nudity and sex in many of their shows (Rome comes to mind as one of biggest offenders/supporters). Unsurprisingly, sex and violence sells. I am not wholly against this, as there are scenes in the show that wouldn't work if they tried to hide or remove the sex. That said, I cannot watch this show during a flight and some of the nudity is a bit over the top.

I watched the show first and it made me want to read the remaining books.

It was quite an interesting experience, being able to place faces and voices from the show onto book characters as I read along.

Strange; everyone else I've spoken to is in love with the show. Some of my coworkers - who I would never expect to be interested in something like GoT - have been asking questions about the show and are starting to read the books. Ride the NYC subway and invariably you'll see someone reading the books.

I was somewhat surprised what kind of boost in popularity books got from the show (Position 3 in books: http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-books-Amazon/zgbs/books/ !).

I'm glad I've read them first though because I think that without reading the books character motivations would not be clear. Even in the books all the connections are introduced kind of slow (and don't even get me started on the characters that travel in the far lands for the fifth book now :)

I also think that he killed too many characters too aggressively and by the fifth book he had to slow down. :)

Fifth book took forever to be written. On the light side there is a good chance we'll see last two books within 5 years - most likely contract with the HBO has specific dates preset, they have to finish the series with or without Martin.

I personally like it, but a few of my friend didn't. I asked them why and mostly they didn't like the pace of the show and found it boring.

One thing in common though was that each one who didn't enjoy it preferred non-fiction (or semi realistic) to fiction in their reading. Note this is a sample size of 5 so its nothing scientific, just a general observation.

That does make sense, but it's not the issue for me. It's really what I perceive as wooden acting, boring and predictable dialogue, characters that make decisions that don't really make sense, big events that are treated kind of the same as much less important events, etc. It also sometimes had that 'book' feeling, and by that I mean, you watch it and think 'hmm, I think I know what they're trying to do here, and it probably worked better in the book'.

I'm not trying to crap all over something you liked, just trying to give more data points.

No that's fine.

Acting I found quite good, particularity the imp. I don't have an artists eye/voice for this but seemed fine to me. The dialogue was alright. Its a but above most other fantasy stuff which is usually quite slapstick in comparison.

With you on the big/small events having the same focus is right though. May be due to an inexperienced team creating the show though. I found for a show based on a book it came across quite well and certainly better then LOTR (I still cant believe they didn't just fly an eagle in and drop the ring off straight away. The show could have been 5 minutes long that way.)

I might give the book a go as a comparison, but supposedly its very slow.

I still cant believe they didn't just fly an eagle in and drop the ring off straight away.

The eagles were Tolkien's favorite go-to when his plot ran into trouble. He just never got enough of them delivering a deus ex machina.

Consider:

- Bilbo and friends are stuck in trees which goblins have lit on fire. (The Hobbit.)

- Everyone is fighting everyone and the goblins have come with the greatest army. (The Hobbit.)

- Gandalf is stuck in a tower and Saruman has been revealed to be a meglomaniac. (The Fellowship of the Ring)

- Gandalf is stuck on top of a mountain after being sent back as Gandalf the White and beating a balrog. (The Two Towers)

- Frodo and Samwise are stuck on an exploding volcano after destroying the Ring. (The Return of the King)

(If you read his other works, like _The Silmarillion_, you'll find more examples.)

I did like the imp character. Best thing on the show IMO, though even his batting average wasn't quite 100%.

Well, you can't make something that everyone likes. The vast majority of people I've talked to have greatly enjoyed the show, and the critics are raving as well. But there are definitely going to be a few people like you for whom it just doesn't work.

It's not just you. I heard it was great from coworkers and friends, but I also find the characters pretty flat and the plot predictable. I always get this vaguely racist feeling from these medieval fantasy worlds -- in this case form the way the grassland people are depicted as backward with gifts of snakes at weddings.

I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.

Wait a minute: you thought the plot was predictable? How far in advance were you able to predict things? Of all the faults in the books and TV show, that's a new one to me.

As for the racial stereotypes, I can see what people mean, but how exactly do you portray different (fictional) ethnicities without evoking those responses?

Yeah that is a strange thing to complain about. Of all its faults, I can't really say GoT was predictable.

I, too, get concerned for the civil rights and public image of fictional races.

Potential issues can arise when fictional races are transparently based on real ethnic groups, though.

If you look closely though, there are people of many different real-life races among the Dothraki (I counted white, black, and asian people, not to mention Jason Momoa whose race I have no idea about).

Culturally, they seem to be based on the ancient Mongols, not on any particular currently-existing culture. Not to mention that as far as I'm aware there aren't any ethnic groups who stereotypically give gifts of snakes to people.

I think it's just reading way too much into a fantasy show that seems to take deliberate pains not to stereotype real-life ethnicities (except for maybe the feudal British).

Well, it's not like I've written a dissertation on this and have very complex arguments, so you might be right.

But what I've noticed in a broader sense is that in these types of fictional worlds, you often have the bare-chested, dark-skinned people doing barbarous things and making gutural noises. Sometimes being downright evil without much reason (because they actually enjoy it or whatever), and they mostly don't have real '3D' characters but are a plot device for violence and other uncivilized actions. They're so cookie cutter that you could see any number of them killed without really feeling anything.

On the other side, you have the Northern European bunch, some of whom can be quite evil too, but usually for complex geopolitical reasons or other more human motivations. In other words, they don't do evil things just for fun or because they don't know better, but because they think they're actually doing the right thing, somehow. Their characters are usually much more developed.

Maybe it's just like this because of the way our evolved brains work, and the target audience can't help but identify with a certain 'tribe'. I don't know.

If you've only read the first book (or only watched the show), I can sort of see how you'd make that statement, but in the lands outside of Westeros, there are dark-skinned people who are wise, spiritually enlightened, and better spoken than the bulk of the 'Northern European' folks presently on the show.

Further, it makes sense that a group of barbaric nomads who ride horseback on the plains would have darker pigment than those who spend their lives at court in a castle. That part isn't fantasy, it's evolution.

> not to stereotype real-life ethnicities (except for maybe the feudal British).

This is actually very true. The Seven Kingdoms are based on the Heptarchy (Lancaster --> Lannister, York --> Stark) and so the story is (very) loosely based upon the War of the Roses.

Except that the Heptarchy were East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria (Bernicia, Deira), Sussex, Wessex (I know it's true because wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy told me ;-)

But yeah, Lancaster->Lannister seemed like a good hint that the War of the Roses was the template for this dynastic struggle.

> there are people of many different real-life races among the Dothraki (I counted white, black, and asian people, not to mention Jason Momoa whose race I have no idea about).

I thought most of the non-brown-skinned people traveling with the Dothraki were slaves received as tribute or taken in battle?

> I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.

Agreed. I love the theme music.

Another show that has great music is John Adams. I bought the soundtrack. I LOVED that miniseries. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it.

I on the other hand, was blown away by the shows and it gives me shivers to re-listen to that theme song.

It's about taste and connecting with the characters. If you don't connect, emotional reaction falls flat.

-it gives me shivers to re-listen to that theme song

I think you will enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yydcG9woWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-ZmlwBWKM is also rather awesome.

I'm curious to know what are some other TV series that you really liked. Maybe I could decipher a pattern...

I loved Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire and GoT.

Deadwood and Rome not so much.

I liked all of those including Rome (and I haven't seen all of Deadwood). Also a big Firefly fan ;)

Out of curiosity, have you seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific, and what did you think of each?

My major peeve with the show is how the exciting villains introduced in the first five minutes never return.

I was also annoyed that Inigo Montoya died so soon.

Assuming the first five minutes is the same as the prologue of the book, they show up as a significant factor later down the line.

I absolutely loved the books, haven't watched the show yet, though.

I know nothing about the books or the series, but it was just some people riding around and not falling off cliffs or out of castles to me. I don't think there's much in the way of spoilers in there unless you're only halfway through or something.

True. You'd already need to be familiar with the characters and settings to consider them spoilers, but at that point, they wouldn't be spoilers, because you'd be at least that far in the books/series.

I've read a couple of the books, but not quite as far as the bit depicted in the last scene, so technically it's a spoiler for me. However, it's not exactly a big surprise ;)

The bit depicted in the last scene is the end of Season 1 of the series, as well as the very end to the first book. Minus some creative liberties, Book 1 of the series maps to Season 1 of the show in lock step.

Am I missing something? How are you a couple books in and that was a spoiler?

Hah! So much for my memory - it's been about four years since I last read them, and I've obviously forgotten which events happened in which book. Thanks for setting me right. Guess I should go back and re-read them at some point...

The last scene in the video is a pretty big spoiler I think.

But you wouldn't know that by seeing it.

Hm. Seems we need a new term. Spoilers tend to be things that people see, and immediately go "OMG WHY DID YOU SHOW ME THAT". This is closer to "huh. dragons.". Maybe "fridge horror"[1] is the closest? A "fridge spoiler"?

[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeHorror

Not really; it was telegraphed a few times in a couple of episodes. I knew it was coming even before the crown incident.

On a similar note, don't watch the show until you read the first book (if you intend to, eventually). Some characters in the show are spot on, some are way off.

I'm currently reading the 1st book after watching the show and wished I'd read it first. Brilliant story and I think the show does an amazing job of converting the books to screen however it would of been great to compare what I interpreted in the books to what they've created on screen.

Curious - who did you think was way off?

Most characters in the show are much older than in the books[1]. That's especially apparent in children, a few years make quite a difference. Apart from the age, I find Cersei and Sandor misrepresented.

[1] http://alexandral.livejournal.com/347217.html

On a related note, here is the process for making the titles. It's nominated for(and most likely to win) an Emmy.

http://www.artofthetitle.com/2011/05/12/game-of-thrones/

The titles were pretty amazing, simultaneously being cool and helping to give new viewers some sense of the layout of the world. Like a 3D jacket map.

That was awesome. It really is a great sequence. Coincidentally, I was recently thinking about the Carnivale title sequence - it's by the same people.

That looks good - reminds me about AOE. But at times, i kinda felt that it was a bit cluttered. I can't say for sure, but may be the contrast?

I really want someone to make a CG movie that centers on exploring a made-up world and does not have a storyline or narration. Just some guy traveling from point A to point B and the viewers tagging along. Think Time Machine or Avatar in a format of that Norwegian train movie [1].

- or -

I would settle for a game of the same kind with stunning visuals and mind-blowing landscapes and detailing, the game that is centered around exploring the world rather than advancing a character or completing missions.

Who's with me? :)

[1] http://boingboing.net/2009/12/19/norwegian-public-bro.html

Yes, completely. A universe with the beauty and depth of the Myst saga, but with no specific purpose would be awesome.

That's why I loved games such as Baldur's Gate so much: you can travel the world for dozen of hours without having to really participate to any quest.

Right, Myst. Totally slipped my mind. Myst 3D was a nice try on their part, but ultimately such a disappointment - too simple and stripped down.

Sounds like you want to play World of Warcraft. Who would want to sit through a 2 hour tech demo of rendered waterfalls and oversaturated sunsets?

WoW is exactly what I do not want. Not jaw-dropping enough, and it has missions and characters - so, no, thank you :) I want a stunningly executed guided tour through someone else's imagination.

With no story...

Wow. As an avid watcher of the show and graphics connoisseur, I didn't know that half those castles were CG. Very fine work.

The CGI is impressive, but I didn't like a lot of the interior set design, especially those in King's Landing. It reminded me of Las Vegas or some mall shop that sells furnishings with faux patina.

As a subscriber to the Game of Thrones reddit, am I absolutely flaging this.

I know I am not supposed to complain about stories on HN, but I feel I have to say this. Let us not have "Oooh, look at these special effects!" type of stories on the HN front page.

I don't believe that's why this was posted, and that's not what I took from this submission. The montage shows the division points between what is real and what is CG in various shots. This is not obvious and gives a lot of insight into how shows like this are created.

You completely missed the point of the post if all you got from it was "Oooh, look at these special effects!"

Nevertheless if it got to the homepage since yesterday AND got close to 200 upvotes, it might mean that at least a subset of the community is interested in the effects used in the TV series. Special effects are "technology" and as such people like you and me might find ourselves interested in such things. As a fan of the A Song of Fire and Ice books, an entrepreneur, and a programmer and technologist, my interest in the application of special effects in the Game of Thrones TV series is significantly higher than the excess of complaint posts about the patent system (I care about the patent system, just not for all the ranting you see these days...) that you see every day on the homepage. I don't complain though, because I know that since those are getting upvoted, it means people ARE interested in that type of posts.

I don't complain though, because I know that since those are getting upvoted, it means people ARE interested in that type of posts.

Complex topics also have people who are interested in them. But for complex topics, in general, the audience is small. However, the more generic and easily understood the topic, to wider its audience.

Thus if we simply say, if it's popular it must be good, then we quickly end up with popular culture, which tends to be shallow. Greatest common denominator and all that.

This is why I don't complain about a flood of patent law articles, I know those won't lead us down the path of the reddit front page. But articles like this, especially because so many are clearly interested, do bother me. Because a lot of people, including me, are also interested in rage comics. They are funny and easy to grasp, and quick to read - super popular. But I dread the day a rage comic is on the HN front page.

But then a rage comic has nothing to do with entrepreneurship, technology, programming, et al. right? I would also dread the day a rage comic gets to the HN front page.

If something is flagged by enough people, it probably means that it's not something that deserves a spot on the HN homepage. As such you have every right to flag it if you don't think that it deserves it's rightful spot, but if you comment on why you think it doesn't deserve to be there you'll invariably get a response by someone (in this case me!) that does believe that it's useful enough to deserve a spot. That being said, I just want to know: How can you equate a rage comic post to a post leading to the application of (particularly good) special effects on TV series?

Are these special effects that much better then what is state of the art today?

Is their application somehow unique or significantly different or more technological?

It seems to me like pretty standard special effects, in fact a bit less special than what you see in big block buster movies.

This is why I perceive this as not much more then neat video.

For those of you who can't get enough GOT CGI, the SFX company released yet another 3 minute before and after video:

http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/08/05/more-game-of-thr...

Cool stuff.

I noticed lots of the background CGI is architectural elements. We'll probably see this techniques used by architects to visualize their projects with moving images that includes real people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com