Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I'm glad that Aegon was cut, that Penny and the ship ride was cut. I guess cutting all the slavers warring with Dany made Mereen less busy...Karsi the Wildling and a few of the visual effects made me really like Hardhome.Oh and I'm good with Selyse being dead and Jaqen representing FMThat's all I think Oh God, yes. Most pointless afterthought of a character ever, next to.. Quentyn! Thank God he was cut as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Its mainly the cutting and trimming that was the real plus to the series. The stuff they added wasn't always the greatest or a massive improvement, but overall they adapted a long drawn out rambling storyline into a concise 10 episode season quite adeptly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Its mainly the cutting and trimming that was the real plus to the series. The stuff they added wasn't always the greatest or a massive improvement, but overall they adapted a long drawn out rambling storyline into a concise 10 episode season quite adeptly. That they did. That's probably the reason the show is so universally loved and successful. Imagine a faithful adaption of a whole season of Tyrion travelling. And travelling. And travelling.. Thank God D&D cut the lard! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primalsplit Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't share the same notion that travelogues would be boring for show. In the books, there are a lot of less important details in travels. It is understandably longer and can get a bit tiresome for readers favoring faster plots (I definitely understand this perspective). In TV series, all we will see is a couple of scenes; the most important and/or entertaining parts. Tyrion did travel in episodes 1-6 already. Jorah "stealing" the boat was travelogue. Tyrion and Varys sitting inside a box was travelogue. Tyrion going to a brothel, being offered free sex from a sex slave was travelogue. Tyrion angering Jorah and Jorah hitting Tyrion was travelogue. Tyrion and Jorah passing through old Sorrowful Valyria, seeing Drogon and exchanging old poetry lines and even being attacked by Stonemen, then Joah contracting greyscale was also travelogue (even though it advanced the plot). Tyrion telling Jorah his father perished was travelogue. Jorah explaining Tyrion why she believes in Khaleesi was travelogue. No one had a problem with this whole season. Telling it would be boring watching Tyrion travelling a lot is simply not true lol. Besides, no one thinks Tyrion should travel all season. Tyrion did not travel the whole book too. So a faithful adaptation would not be Tyrion travelling from episode 1 to episode 10, nor would it be going through every detail in his travels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The difference is that in the books characters travel and meet people completely unrelated to anything in the main plot and nothing moves forwards. Simply not possible in a tv show to do that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't share the same notion that travelogues would be boring for show. In the books, there are a lot of less important details in travels. It is understandably longer and can get a bit tiresome for readers favoring faster plots (I definitely understand this perspective). In TV series, all we will see is a couple of scenes; the most important and/or entertaining parts. Tyrion did travel in episodes 1-6 already. Jorah "stealing" the boat was travelogue. Tyrion and Varys sitting inside a box was travelogue. Tyrion going to a brothel, being offered free sex from a sex slave was travelogue. Tyrion angering Jorah and Jorah hitting Tyrion was travelogue. Tyrion and Jorah passing through old Sorrowful Valyria, seeing Drogon and exchanging old poetry lines and even being attacked by Stonemen, then Joah contracting greyscale was also travelogue (even though it advanced the plot). Tyrion telling Jorah his father perished was travelogue. Jorah explaining Tyrion why she believes in Khaleesi was travelogue. No one had a problem with this whole season. Telling it would be boring watching Tyrion travelling a lot is simply not true lol. Besides, no one thinks Tyrion should travel all season. Tyrion did not travel the whole book too. So a faithful adaptation would not be Tyrion travelling from episode 1 to episode 10, nor would it be going through every detail in his travels. This is something I don't understand about those who defend the show. Apparently D+D "cut the fat" but...practically every major story was on screen in some form or will be on screen in S6 from the look of casting calls. Tyrion did have a travelogue, we did get Dorne, we're getting the Ironborn. So...I don't understand what the deal is with some people. D+D didn't cut the fat. They cut the meat and left the fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primalsplit Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The difference is that in the books characters travel and meet people completely unrelated to anything in the main plot and nothing moves forwards. Simply not possible in a tv show to do that all the time. Again, no one claims Tyrion should meet unrelated characters to have a travelogue. Of course the books will allow for more inconsequental characters than a TV show. This is not my arguing point. My point is travelogue, if done well; is not a boring thing. We already have it in the show and it works fine. Saying the show is succesful because of eliminating travelogue is just untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 What I liked better than in the books: - Tyrion not only travelling but ARRIVING. Meeting Dany and connecting with her instead of deferring this culmination (again) to the next book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 This is not my arguing point. And what is your arguing point about things you liked better in the show than in the book in season 5? Since - excuse me to mention it - this is the thread topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primalsplit Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Well, there's not a lot of change I liked if this is what you ask. I disliked Tyrion not even meeting with Dany. Martin teasing us like this whole book was very annoying, so there's definitely that. But I didn't even like how it was done in the show. Tyrion's attitude that he is a demigod walking among men was extremely annoying, considering he is being brought as a captive. If I was Daenerys and a some Lannister dwarf was talking to me like that, I would have ripped his tongue out and made him my court jester. I would even consider selling his member to a cock merchant. I also liked that Dany's scenes are not repetitive like in the books. Other than that I don't have much of an arguing point about what I liked. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency in your initial statement. Your second statement makes much more sense. Sorry if my post seemed a bit snarky. That was not my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I just wanted to point out the inconsistency in your initial statement. Your second statement makes much more sense. Sorry if my post seemed a bit snarky. That was not my intention. Don't mention it, I catch myself being snarky as well because certain show haters (not you) do their best to derail every positive thread about the show. If I was Daenerys and a some Lannister dwarf was talking to me like that, I would have ripped his tongue out and made him my court jester. This had me laughing out loud, a point well made and taken :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The other prince Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 It was absolutely a waste of time. They completely ignored the battle after the fact - Jon seemingly doesn't mention the huge army of undead he just faced to Thorne or any of the other NW. You can speculate about how that scene happened off screen, but it shouldn't have happened off screen. Using the show's logic, Jon's assassination should not have happened. Because the threat of the WWs was huge, witnessed by loads of people who made it back to Castle Black and Jon's leadership had been almost completely unproblematic. So they really ignored the consequences of Hardhome. It was clearly just there to be a cool battle sequence. And honestly it wasn't even that great. Filled with cliches. I disagree. It is as likely as not that the NW would view the Wildlings worse then ever after hearing about the threat of the WW. They do not trust the Wildlings so now they have this incredible threat coming from the WW and (from the POV of the watch) a threat at their backs from the Wildlings. The point here is that the majority of the Watch simply does not trust any of the Wildlings. Hearing about the enormity of threat of the WW wouldn't automatically change this as you seem to suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSmith84 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I disagree. It is as likely as not that the NW would view the Wildlings worse then ever after hearing about the threat of the WW. They do not trust the Wildlings so now they have this incredible threat coming from the WW and (from the POV of the watch) a threat at their backs from the Wildlings. The point here is that the majority of the Watch simply does not trust any of the Wildlings. Hearing about the enormity of threat of the WW wouldn't automatically change this as you seem to suggest. But Edd expressed doubts in front of everybody about Jon's decision to go to Hardhome. When he and the other NW members return and describe what they saw, their newfound support for Jon's decisions should make the rest pay attention and think that maybe, just maybe, Jon is right. I mean, there was between 1/4 and 1/5 of the members of the NW involved in FTW. A couple, I could understand. Olly, definitely. But that many? Especially Alliser, who is clearly aware that supernatural creatures do exist (check S4E1 where Janos Slynt laughs at Jon's claim of giants, then looks at Alliser and sees that he took Jon's claim seiously). Alliser should not have been involved in FTW; it managed to completely villainise one of the few decently written characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I disagree. It is as likely as not that the NW would view the Wildlings worse then ever after hearing about the threat of the WW. They do not trust the Wildlings so now they have this incredible threat coming from the WW and (from the POV of the watch) a threat at their backs from the Wildlings. The point here is that the majority of the Watch simply does not trust any of the Wildlings. Hearing about the enormity of threat of the WW wouldn't automatically change this as you seem to suggest. In which case why let the Wildlings, Jon and all the other presumably traitorous Night's Watchmen (due to them helping the wildlings) through the Wall in the first place? And look, I get that it wouldn't immediately make everyone be friends, but we don't even see Jon arguing his case, telling everyone that the threat of the WW's is very real and very immediate. Sure, you can headcanon that it happened offscreen but that's a big thing to happen off screen. You shouldn't have to do that. It's not the audience's job to fill in huge gaps that the show runner's left out. And it's certainly not the audience's job to praise the writer's for a great, consistent story based on scenes that didn't actually happen. There was just no nuance to this. In the books the threat of the Others is far less immediate, and yet the NW recognise that they do have to work with the wildlings - and do so for months. The mutiny is the result of slowly increasing discontent, which finally boils to the surface when Jon makes the very morally questionable decision of straight up breaking his vows and marching on Winterfell with a wildling army. In that scenario, from Bowen's perspective he's pretty justified in what he's doing. Legally speaking (not that Westeros has a structured justice system) he kind of is, given that the penalty for desertion is death. In the show it's just bad guy stabs good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, another thing that I liked: - No Lady Stoneheart (zombie nonsense)- No Darkstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The other prince Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 In which case why let the Wildlings, Jon and all the other presumably traitorous Night's Watchmen (due to them helping the wildlings) through the Wall in the first place? That is kind of the point. From their point of view it's bad enough to try and bring the Wildlings through the gate, but after learning how severe the threat is in their mind that just another worry they have to deal with. Because you think a group of people should react one way doesn't automatically mean they will. I really doubt anyone in the Watch thinks the Wildlings will help them at all.people cling to old beliefs even if they are in direct conflict with logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Eddard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 To quote the thread starter: There are so many threads about all the scenes and changes we hated this season, so let's discuss here the things we actually liked. What are some changes/scenes/events made in the show that you prefer over the ones in the books or that you wish were in the books? I have already reported protar for trolling and derailing this thread, I will continue to do so with every poster who comes with the tired old Everything is bad about the show blabla.. This is not the thread for you. State what you liked in the show or go elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, something else I liked. It's such a small detail, but I liked that the Sons of the Harpy wore the masks. I know the Brazen Beasts have the masks in the books, but they never did much and were just there. And while in the books it's sort of important that the SotH don't have a distinctive trait and therefore can be anyone, it's better for the medium of television to give them a visual trademark to establish them as antagonists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSmith84 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, something else I liked. It's such a small detail, but I liked that the Sons of the Harpy wore the masks. I know the Brazen Beasts have the masks in the books, but they never did much and were just there. And while in the books it's sort of important that the SotH don't have a distinctive trait and therefore can be anyone, it's better for the medium of television to give them a visual trademark to establish them as antagonists Yes the masks were a nice visual touch. They looked very sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Tyrion/Varys over Tyrion/IllyrioTyrion/Jorah over Tyrion/Griffs (though mostly due to them being cut)Dany and Tyrion actually meetingHardhome showing the WW's power potential, I liked them always lurking close by in the books but TV is a visual medium so it needed to be shown.Siddig as Doran doing something with nothingAnd no Penny and the pig vs dog midget jousting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.