Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[sanzor]

The point of my question,which I should have expressed better, was to see how everyone likes the story/show the directors have created based on ASOIaF that's all. I know they can't be as detailed as books, and they can't cover every aspect. My thing is do you like the series and their version & changes they've made. Do you like how they are telling their story, based on GRRM books and knowing what they got to work with. I love the books and there's so much creativity and story they can pull from, how do you like their vision and what they have done w/it so far. I liked seasons 123 i'm just not feeling the 4th one to much, that's all.

I read the books after i saw the first 2 seasons.The first 2 seasons were great ,they were greatly packed inside the show,even season 3 was ok.Season 4 i think it creates unnecesary plots when they didnt even finish the material of book 3!!...You make the useless Craster sequences and we are likely to see no battle on the wall.By rights both battles shoudve been put in the show(120 Thenns+Mance on the other side).

But there is a large BUT ! It is the show that created THE WALL,KL,and WF same as the Kingsroad.You will tell me that it is better to imagine for yourself how it would look but something like the wall or north of the wall is by far better in the show then in the books.I need something to relate to in real life ,a landscape that i can see.George is rich in words and sometimes i feel like i get confused,i used the dictionary alot..So in terms of Landscape,Clothing(by far it makes an easier job to imagine then in the books),Food,Armor(you can learn the elements if you are interested) the show is a great addition to the books.But again i see it as an addition ,a suppliment.!!

[Caerl Targaryen]

The books are way, way better. D&D are making some questionable decisions.

I agree. Season 4 in particular isn't working as well for me. I really feel like the added material this season just isn't as well thought out as in previous seasons ("Where are my dragons?" notwithstanding...). I don't like that we've been getting large blocks of time devoted to invented storylines that ultimately go nowhere while other important stories (such as everything in Essos) get cut or trimmed so much that the characters get very limited development.

Poor Jorah has become little more than a talking head. Barristan has done and said almost nothing this season. And the scenes we do get of Dany feel rushed and limited to just the big plot points without any of the build up or rationale for what she's thinking or doing. That's unfortunate as I think they were mostly doing a great job with the Essos stuff up until this season.

I do give D&D credit where it's due, though. They have mostly handled all the really big moments exceptionally well. The birth of Dany's dragons (that final shot of her standing unburnt was so cool), Red Wedding, Purple Wedding, "dracarys," Ned's beheading, Tyrion's trial, etc. The show's biggest weakness is with its invented material. Sometimes it's really, really good and other times it's just a giant "WTF were they thinking?"

[...] and we are likely to see no battle on the wall.By rights both battles shoudve been put in the show(120 Thenns+Mance on the other side).

Actually...

...that's happening in episode 9, "The Watchers on the Wall."

[Lady of the Falls]

I read the books after i saw the first 2 seasons.The first 2 seasons were great ,they were greatly packed inside the show,even season 3 was ok.Season 4 i think it creates unnecesary plots when they didnt even finish the material of book 3!!...You make the useless Craster sequences and we are likely to see no battle on the wall.By rights both battles shoudve been put in the show(120 Thenns+Mance on the other side).

But there is a large BUT ! It is the show that created THE WALL,KL,and WF same as the Kingsroad.You will tell me that it is better to imagine for yourself how it would look but something like the wall or north of the wall is by far better in the show then in the books.I need something to relate to in real life ,a landscape that i can see.George is rich in words and sometimes i feel like i get confused,i used the dictionary alot..So in terms of Landscape,Clothing(by far it makes an easier job to imagine then in the books),Food,Armor(you can learn the elements if you are interested) the show is a great addition to the books.But again i see it as an addition ,a suppliment.!!

You summed up my feelings exactly :)

[Trillian]

They are both great related to their own medium. Obviously the book as a different level of depth, as there are no limits or constraints to creativity. The show is amazing television with some totally enjoyable twists.

[Zebra of KotOR]

I trust everyone that says the show is a great tv show but I just can't take the changes. Many of the changes I saw were understandable cause money/time but others made me sad. Then mad. The two that made me stop watching the show were Robb falling in love with that woman and all of what they did to Qarth. I'm not saying the show is terrible or anything just that I hate it :)

[The King Of Cooked Steak]

The books are MILES better. The show is pretty good and improves on certain things from the books, but is in no way better. That's also partly because of time, budget and all around what you are and are not allowed to put on TV.

Now on normal TV and storytelling standards, the show is amazing, and quite possibly one of the best. Breaking Bad IMO tops it but still, it's really good considering how huge the production is.

[TheOldWolf]

They did deviate from the books

But I have to say all the actors they chose are perfect for the character they play, I can't think of one actor who doesn't represent the character perfectly

[LordStoneheart]

It will be so sad to see the thing she has become.

I know... but it will be awesome to see what she does.

[IRON BANK]

The books by far are better. nothing stops the power of imagination. The books have more details, Th show is like a dumbed down soft porn version. If the show focused more on the book material it would be more exciting, diverse and actually cutting edge.

[Oberyn2cool4Westeros]

I enjoy both.

The books have a lot more backstory, detail, and time to flesh out characters and events - for obvious reasons. The show has to present the biggest parts in the time given, and thus leaves some stuff out. However, this also means the show is usually fast-paced and there's always something big happening or about to happen, while in the books certain chapters can drag on just 'cause they're not forced to hurry things up.

I think some characters are better in the show while others in the books.

The books tell a better story - as is the case with all books compared to their on-screen counterparts, but the show's entertaining nonetheless.

[Caerl Targaryen]

The books by far are better. nothing stops the power of imagination. The books have more details, Th show is like a dumbed down soft porn version. If the show focused more on the book material it would be more exciting, diverse and actually cutting edge.

Yeah but...boobs!

As much as I like nudity, I do wish they'd spend more time on the actual plots than random nudity. If they're going to include nudity, which is fine with me, I prefer it to actually serve the story instead of mostly just be treated as set dressing. The current approach also seems to lead to rather contrived scene settings.

A good example. Dany's story in season 1 had a lot of nudity. But it was part of her story arc. Nudity made sense there. The endless brothel scenes, however, usually contribute very little (if anything) beyond lots of random breasts.

[Good Guy Garlan]

The books are miles better, but I guess the show will eventually get the edge because it actually has an ending on sight

[Bren]

I read the books first and loved them. I watch the show from time to time.

I really like the scenery in the show. I don't like the way some characters are portrayed. I feel that I know them in some way and their personality in the show si just different. I also have a hard timé because I don't understand the accent of most of the actors.

[DavosSeaworthy]

The books, the series has changed way too much for no reason. I get why you have to change some things for TV, but I find a lot of the changes this season and from season 3 to be quite pointless and potentially damaging to the series in the future IMO. Things like cutting Willis and Garlan Tyrell out altogether, why? Serves no purpose, other than to avoid possible casting in the future if Garlan turns out to see some action in Winds. Sam telling Jon about Bran, why? Jon's thoughts about his brothers being dead and expressing this to Sam while Sam is trying to keep it a secret make for great character building in the books, and could have added some excellent scenes in the show between Sam and Jon, I guess they were cut to make way for an extra Sam and Gilly sex scene. Changing Tormound to a raider south of the Wall instead of leading his forces north of the Wall. Seems silly and I honestly worry that he may be killed by the end of the season, and his scenes with Jon in Dance are outstanding. The show is starting to lose it for me, if Winds is out by the end of the year or early into next, I may stop watching the show altogether and just reread the books again, they are that good. The show started off so well, and just seems to try and hit a few key scenes instead of highlighting other important aspects of the books.

[SerArthurHeath]

Both for different reasons. Both are individually excellent. But in general I prefer books to shows so if pushed, the books

[Miodrag]

To say that I prefer the books would be a huge understatement. They're hardly comparable even. The show could be compared only with the most shallow reading of the books, and even then it would loose, most probably.

The show has too many problems and failures on its own to be taken as a great TV. In terms of writing, directing and acting, it's not in the league with The Wire, The Sopranos, True Detective, Deadwood, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and other shows usually regarded as high-drama. One can love GOT more than any of those shows because of a personal taste and preferences (for example, I don't particularly love Mad Men or Deadwood), but if we compare writing/directing/acting, the gap is pretty much obvious. I'm not talking about production difficulties, of course, because that's an entirely separate issue and not detrimental for the discussion of the show as an artistic achievement. And, sadly, the show didn't live up to the creators' artistic ambitions even. When it was finally green-lighted, the show was described by Benioff as "The Sopranos of The Middle Earth". But, as early as in season one it was clear that, even if The Middle Earth angle they possibly got right, with The Sopranos part they failed big time. Following seasons only strengthened the notion.

Taken as an adaptation, the show is an even bigger misfire. With very few exceptions, the changes and improvisations achieved nothing, and not so seldom they're even embarrassing (just look at the last two episodes: Craster's and Yara's attack on Dreadfort), but the amount of book-dialogues they omitted is simply inexplicable. I mean, they didn't include even "That is the only time a man can be brave" line, which is the first iconic line in the saga, and it would be no trouble at all to include it. And no, none of the most terrible changes/omissions was commanded by production issues or some never-properly-explained "adaptation rules". Bad storytelling is bad storytelling, regardless of the medium. Just like good storytelling is good storytelling. And ASOIAF is brilliant storytelling. Compared to many other novels that are as brilliant, ASOIAF is more suited for adaptations, if for nothing else, then for the very rich and vivid dialogue. People like to repeat standard meaningless excuses, like saying this or that "wouldn't work on television", but in reality, GOT is among the worst adaptations out there.

[Daske]

I love both books and show. And have never devoured a series of books so quickly.

But at this point I probably prefer the show. Imagination alone can be great, but there is so much on screen to be admired that is absent in a written story such as the inspired casting, acting, music, cgi, set and costume design. It's not that these are better in the show, they don't exist at all in books.

I find it a much richer experience on screen, and really don't care if the odd line I enjoyed in the books is missing (other added lines are just as good). There is also the added benefit of shared experience while watching the show with friends or discussing episodes with them as the story unfolds week by week that you can't replicate reading alone. If I had to sum it up, I read books in classic black & white but when I watch the show it is in glorious technicolour.

[Snoggs]

To say that I prefer the books would be a huge understatement. They're hardly comparable even. The show could be compared only with the most shallow reading of the books, and even then it would loose, most probably.

The show has too many problems and failures on its own to be taken as a great TV. In terms of writing, directing and acting, it's not in the league with The Wire, The Sopranos, True Detective, Deadwood, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and other shows usually regarded as high-drama. One can love GOT more than any of those shows because of a personal taste and preferences (for example, I don't particularly love Mad Men or Deadwood), but if we compare writing/directing/acting, the gap is pretty much obvious. I'm not talking about production difficulties, of course, because that's an entirely separate issue and not detrimental for the discussion of the show as an artistic achievement. And, sadly, the show didn't live up to the creators' artistic ambitions even. When it was finally green-lighted, the show was described by Benioff as "The Sopranos of The Middle Earth". But, as early as in season one it was clear that, even if The Middle Earth angle they possibly got right, with The Sopranos part they failed big time. Following seasons only strengthened the notion.

Taken as an adaptation, the show is an even bigger misfire. With very few exceptions, the changes and improvisations achieved nothing, and not so seldom they're even embarrassing (just look at the last two episodes: Craster's and Yara's attack on Dreadfort), but the amount of book-dialogues they omitted is simply inexplicable. I mean, they didn't include even "That is the only time a man can be brave" line, which is the first iconic line in the saga, and it would be no trouble at all to include it. And no, none of the most terrible changes/omissions was commanded by production issues or some never-properly-explained "adaptation rules". Bad storytelling is bad storytelling, regardless of the medium. Just like good storytelling is good storytelling. And ASOIAF is brilliant storytelling. Compared to many other novels that are as brilliant, ASOIAF is more suited for adaptations, if for nothing else, then for the very rich and vivid dialogue. People like to repeat standard meaningless excuses, like saying this or that "wouldn't work on television", but in reality, GOT is among the worst adaptations out there.

I agree 100%. This should have been the best series ever - Storm of Swords being the best book. Almost every criticism levelled at the TV series has been focused on elements either changed or invented by the showrunners. The list of changes is endless and I am not going to regurgitate them here. Most I could understand and ran with, but for me the Jaime rape scene this season was the turning point.

[sj4iy]

I love both books and show. And have never devoured a series of books so quickly.

But at this point I probably prefer the show. Imagination alone can be great, but there is so much on screen to be admired that is absent in a written story such as the inspired casting, acting, music, cgi, set and costume design. It's not that these are better in the show, they don't exist at all in books.

I find it a much richer experience on screen, and really don't care if the odd line I enjoyed in the books is missing (other added lines are just as good). There is also the added benefit of shared experience while watching the show with friends or discussing episodes with them as the story unfolds week by week that you can't replicate reading alone. If I had to sum it up, I read books in classic black & white but when I watch the show it is in glorious technicolour.

You summed up my feelings exactly. It is very rare when a show (or movie) can blow me away with its ability to completely immerse me into a different world. Probably the last time that happened was Fellowship of the Ring...it's why I give the edge to the show.

[Chebyshov]

I love the detail and lack of constraints in the books, but I may give the show an edge. They're telling a cleaner story in a lot of ways. If I'm being honest, I struggled making myself get through AFFC and the beginning parts of ADWD. Even though the show deviates from the plot at times, I trust the show-runners to know where it's going and so far, they've pulled it off well.

That being said, I can't imagine enjoying the show as much as I do without having read the books. I was an Unsullied for 2 seasons, and though it was a very enjoyable experience, I love how my "book knowledge" informs or enhances how I view a scene.

Both are excellent for their given mediums, but I think in the end, I may prefer the visual form. We lose some detail I would have liked, but we also lose some detail I don't care to relive, too. This is how I felt about LOTR as well.