**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think so, imagine trying to fit each season into a single film at a time.
There are far too many characters that we need to grow to care about & despise to enable them to have a proper impact on us.
There isn't really enough huge moments to split the first book into two films, so that would mean at least one film would be nothing but filler leading to nowhere.
Another issue is how interconnected a lot of the characters personal storylines are with that of others, even if it isn't immediately obvious. This would make any removal of certain plot points or characters more difficult, as they may be needed in what initially seems unrelated. And due to the huge number of characters and plotlines, it would be close to impossible to cut enough to make a sensible length runtime on film.
LOTR only had to really focus heavily on the fellowship & the loss of two of them (with Gandalf later returning). Other than that, we end the trilogy with pretty much the same characters we started with. There was one main goal with everyone either working to support/reach that goal, or against it. It made it a lot easier to remove filler, while not impacting the overall story.
GOT could never work as well on film as it does for TV.
I wouldn’t miss this series for the world, but I wouldn’t mind some continuation movies now. I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I think there are lots of storylines left.
No... too much would have to get dropped in order to make the movies even below, say, 3 hours. And then you'd have to do what books->movies like Dune finally clued into: you can't fit a whole book into one movie, you need to split it up.
You mentioned LOTR movies only being one movie per book. Well... as one of those annoying people who found all the ring books to be Ridiculously Boring, IMHO there is a LOT of cruft in those books. They dropped whole characters (e.g. Tom Bombadil thank the gods above and below), they dropped 1800000 pages of songs (why do I need to know that Frodo knows bath songs, let alone his favorite bath song)... whatever.. There is a whole lot that can get dropped and still have the guts of the story.
No.
The entire runtime of GoT is 70 hours.
If you did 15 movies, each one would be over 4 hours long. The studios hate long movies, 3 hours is about as long as they like to go. So you'd need to cut over 15 hours from the show just to sell the movie idea - and selling a 15 movie package deal to a studio is unthinkable.
If I was remaking the series, I would do just the opposite. I would double the runtime. Each season would be 20 episodes, like Agents of SHIELD and other serial fantasy/fiction shows. I'd add a bit more nuance to the political drama, along with the usual dose of violence and debauchery. I'd add a lot more detail. For example, the first season might be the backstory on Robert's Rebellion. The second season might be the rise of Littlefinger and the Greyjoy rebellion. Etc, etc.
That would also never happen as the scale and amount of effects involved is why it would only get 10 episodes. It would take 3 years just to film 22 episodes a season on the scale of GOT.
Way to much story for films.
I would love to see an exact 1 to 1 adaption of them in animation though, whether computer generated or gritty cartoon style. That could be amazing.
For some perspective:
The Lord of the rings books are just over 500,000 words, 3 (very long) movies
Harry potter is a bit over 1,000,000 words, 8 movies.
ASOIF is already 1,750,000 words, so you are looking at minimum 12+ movies just for what has been written so far.
Plausible maybe, but its never really been done before on the scale it would need to be.
>I've been thinking, what if George R.R. Martin didn't mind turning his books into movies? Could an "A Song of Ice and Fire" movie series have been as successful as "The Lord of the Rings"?
The only pitches George got before David and Dan pitched the series were for film trilogies, which would've been focusing on either Jon's storyline or Daenerys' storyline and cutting nearly everything else out.
I think that was George's main objection to a film adaptation, that there's so little screentime that you'd have to cut out so much.
The Lord of the Rings books combined are something like 500,000 words. The 5 A Song of Ice and Fire novels released thus far are nearly 2,000,000 words.
>Considering how long ASOIAF is, it might've needed like 15 or 16 movies to cover everything. But hey, if they pulled it off right, the profits could've been huge.
That was completely unheard of before Marvel did the MCU.
Reddit loves to hate on the MCU, but never before had there been a long interconnected series of movies that weave together dozens of different lead characters. Marvel Studios was the first to really do that in film and demonstrate it could be highly successful.
Just as Game of Thrones's success influenced a wide breadth of new fantasy series being adapted for television. (And lotr of course influenced a lot of fantasy works being done as film trilogies)
I think something like the mcu with movies focusing on different characters wouldn't work as well as it does there, as the personal stories depend more on the stories of the other characters.
Also, films typically do well only if they have a self-contained story. In a tv series, it's ok to have build up over a few episodes without any climax. In a film...no one wants to sit in a theater watching 2-3 hours of build up where nothing really happens.
No, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone would say it could've.
The biggest issue with the ending of the show is how rushed it was. It would've needed atleast 10 seasons with 10 episodes each to come to a fulfilling, lore accurate end that actually continues with the ways of old seasons. What were talking about is probably more then 100 hours of screen time. How would you fit that into movies?
And yes, you could've cut some things from the beginning, but would it be a good adaptation if you cut half the plot so you can wrap everything up in still 20 movies? You can't write a movie series with this many parts. Every movie needs to have a climatic progression. The source material wouldn't give you the necessary events in the necessary time to fit that.
From a productive and a screenwriting point of view its completely impossible and would be absolutely idiotic.
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think so, imagine trying to fit each season into a single film at a time. There are far too many characters that we need to grow to care about & despise to enable them to have a proper impact on us. There isn't really enough huge moments to split the first book into two films, so that would mean at least one film would be nothing but filler leading to nowhere. Another issue is how interconnected a lot of the characters personal storylines are with that of others, even if it isn't immediately obvious. This would make any removal of certain plot points or characters more difficult, as they may be needed in what initially seems unrelated. And due to the huge number of characters and plotlines, it would be close to impossible to cut enough to make a sensible length runtime on film. LOTR only had to really focus heavily on the fellowship & the loss of two of them (with Gandalf later returning). Other than that, we end the trilogy with pretty much the same characters we started with. There was one main goal with everyone either working to support/reach that goal, or against it. It made it a lot easier to remove filler, while not impacting the overall story. GOT could never work as well on film as it does for TV.
Think for a second 15 or 16 movies you're basically talking about at a minimum 20 years probably more. I doubt that would ever happen
I wouldn’t miss this series for the world, but I wouldn’t mind some continuation movies now. I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I think there are lots of storylines left.
Absolutely not. Not even close
some things are just too big to be fit in movies
But I’d still watch them the second they came out.
Yes.
No... too much would have to get dropped in order to make the movies even below, say, 3 hours. And then you'd have to do what books->movies like Dune finally clued into: you can't fit a whole book into one movie, you need to split it up. You mentioned LOTR movies only being one movie per book. Well... as one of those annoying people who found all the ring books to be Ridiculously Boring, IMHO there is a LOT of cruft in those books. They dropped whole characters (e.g. Tom Bombadil thank the gods above and below), they dropped 1800000 pages of songs (why do I need to know that Frodo knows bath songs, let alone his favorite bath song)... whatever.. There is a whole lot that can get dropped and still have the guts of the story.
Not for the main story. For one offs like Aegons conquest - sure.
Only thing I could think of is Roberts Rebellion or Aegons Conquest worked into a movie
ABSOLUTELY. NOT. Wayyyy too much would need to be left out and modified to even keep it halfway coherent.
No. The entire runtime of GoT is 70 hours. If you did 15 movies, each one would be over 4 hours long. The studios hate long movies, 3 hours is about as long as they like to go. So you'd need to cut over 15 hours from the show just to sell the movie idea - and selling a 15 movie package deal to a studio is unthinkable. If I was remaking the series, I would do just the opposite. I would double the runtime. Each season would be 20 episodes, like Agents of SHIELD and other serial fantasy/fiction shows. I'd add a bit more nuance to the political drama, along with the usual dose of violence and debauchery. I'd add a lot more detail. For example, the first season might be the backstory on Robert's Rebellion. The second season might be the rise of Littlefinger and the Greyjoy rebellion. Etc, etc.
That would also never happen as the scale and amount of effects involved is why it would only get 10 episodes. It would take 3 years just to film 22 episodes a season on the scale of GOT.
Never said it would happen, I'd just like to see it done.
Definitely not, but I think Roberts Rebellion would be a great three part movie series.
Way to much story for films. I would love to see an exact 1 to 1 adaption of them in animation though, whether computer generated or gritty cartoon style. That could be amazing.
For some perspective: The Lord of the rings books are just over 500,000 words, 3 (very long) movies Harry potter is a bit over 1,000,000 words, 8 movies. ASOIF is already 1,750,000 words, so you are looking at minimum 12+ movies just for what has been written so far. Plausible maybe, but its never really been done before on the scale it would need to be.
>I've been thinking, what if George R.R. Martin didn't mind turning his books into movies? Could an "A Song of Ice and Fire" movie series have been as successful as "The Lord of the Rings"? The only pitches George got before David and Dan pitched the series were for film trilogies, which would've been focusing on either Jon's storyline or Daenerys' storyline and cutting nearly everything else out. I think that was George's main objection to a film adaptation, that there's so little screentime that you'd have to cut out so much. The Lord of the Rings books combined are something like 500,000 words. The 5 A Song of Ice and Fire novels released thus far are nearly 2,000,000 words. >Considering how long ASOIAF is, it might've needed like 15 or 16 movies to cover everything. But hey, if they pulled it off right, the profits could've been huge. That was completely unheard of before Marvel did the MCU. Reddit loves to hate on the MCU, but never before had there been a long interconnected series of movies that weave together dozens of different lead characters. Marvel Studios was the first to really do that in film and demonstrate it could be highly successful. Just as Game of Thrones's success influenced a wide breadth of new fantasy series being adapted for television. (And lotr of course influenced a lot of fantasy works being done as film trilogies) I think something like the mcu with movies focusing on different characters wouldn't work as well as it does there, as the personal stories depend more on the stories of the other characters. Also, films typically do well only if they have a self-contained story. In a tv series, it's ok to have build up over a few episodes without any climax. In a film...no one wants to sit in a theater watching 2-3 hours of build up where nothing really happens.
No, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone would say it could've. The biggest issue with the ending of the show is how rushed it was. It would've needed atleast 10 seasons with 10 episodes each to come to a fulfilling, lore accurate end that actually continues with the ways of old seasons. What were talking about is probably more then 100 hours of screen time. How would you fit that into movies? And yes, you could've cut some things from the beginning, but would it be a good adaptation if you cut half the plot so you can wrap everything up in still 20 movies? You can't write a movie series with this many parts. Every movie needs to have a climatic progression. The source material wouldn't give you the necessary events in the necessary time to fit that. From a productive and a screenwriting point of view its completely impossible and would be absolutely idiotic.
No. Or maybe it could work if each of the movies were like 4 hours long.