I've heard that story as well. Kind of stupid way to choose your television production team IMO (doesn't reveal anything about actual television show-making ability), but what do I know.
It's a great way to see if they're paying attention to the story and if they are passionate about the story to do it justice on a television show.
Not sure how I feel about GoT's emmy record. I love me some GoT, but I don't think it's one of the greatest television show of all time.
It's not the greatest no; but I think it is a quality show and the amount of Emmy's doesn't correlate to how good a show is compared to other Emmy winning shows...
but if someone says "but it's just a stupid fantasy show watch a a real show like The West Wing...."
I can reply "Which show has more Emmy's?" and be that guys
Another interesting thing is how after Game of Thrones came along is the resurgence of shows featuring shady political figures backstabbing people.
No it's not the best but damn it's a good show. And I like fantasy as well as sci-fi so I'm glad G.R.R. Martin said yes to a t.v. based on his books.
Hell. i feel like GoT is one of the very rare times the TV/movie adaptation is better than the actual books.
I agree and disagree. The story threads in the books, while they can be unwieldy, give the impression of a real world populated by a lot of interesting characters. Additionally some of the things in the books are awesome story details that I miss from the show
But it's almost too much to pay attention to.
The show is great at distilling the sprawling book story to the barest essentials and translating the story to television. Even though there is still a lot in the show and some of the more uptight people have screamed spoilers over something already in the show that they forgot about.
There are some elements in the show isn't in the book. Like the battle at Hardhome.
Both versions of the story have their advantages and disadvantages when compared to one another.
...