259 replies to this topic

[Mad Sweeney]

Gnomestress, on 21 June 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

I'm not so much annoyed that they changed Shae.  I don't really mind that they've made Cercei a little less crazy and a little more relatable (although in the second season, I think they're going to show more of her evil side) Roz grows on me episode by episode.  Subtlety has been sacrificed for more obvious gestures, conversations, and plot points but that is necessary for TV.  I'm taking all changes with a nice heaping grain of salt.  Some of them I'm actually enjoying (I'm personally a fan of TV Cat & TV Jon.  I didn't like them at all in the books.)

What gets me is what they changed Shae into.  Shae 2.0 lacks the naivete, sweet disposition (however feigned), and corn-fed charm that makes book Shae fit into place in the plot.  Bronn, the clansmen, & Shae combine together in the books as a connection to the more common side of Westeros.  Tyrion is besieged day and night with the affairs of noble people, the vast majority of which have it out for him.  He takes solace in the simplicity of Bronn's nature (Money + Survival).  Timmett Son of Timmett, Chella, Shagga, and the like are steadfast in their loyalty and Tyrion is amused by their mundane and savage view of the world (AKA: This bothers you?  Kill it dead.)

Book Shae fits right in to this idea of that which is commonplace as less threatening and therefore comforting to Tyrion.  The other women he encounters are noble and if not outwardly hostile to him only speak to him to further their own ends.  Shae is just the opposite of those threatening women.  They put on airs, speak with elevated language, and come from powerful families.  Shae is straightforward, crass, and is as common as a weed.  It is this difference from his enemies that makes Shae someone Tyrion lets his guard down around.  She is his one bastion of support in a city full of people who want to see him fall.  He trusts her because he thinks that she is loyal and too stupid to plot against him.

Shae 2.0 is similar in many ways to the noble women that threaten Tyrion in King's Landing.  She keeps secrets, carries herself proudly, puts on airs, and she has said flat out that she is not a commoner.  I fail to see how Tyrion could ever come to trust and love her.  She doesn't fit into the rest of the people that he surrounds himself with in King's Landing.

One last thing.  A major theme during Shae's time in King's Landing is the fact that Tywin clearly states that she's not to go to court.  Once ousted from the manse Tyrion kept her in, Shae is hidden as a chambermaid.  A common girl, however pretty and at times insolent can fit in as a lady's maid.  Mysterious, exotic Shae 2.0 will stick out like a rose in a field of dandelions.  Lady Tanda isn't the brightest but I think even she would notice...


EDIT-After I posted I read Unnamed's post...therefore I'll ad that   on all points.

Surely you've noticed that many things are different in the show than in the books.  I think you should wait and see who Tyrion surrounds himself with in TV King's Landing before making this statement.

[Gnomestress]

Silverx2, on 21 June 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

I wonder if viewers thought it was odd to see the hound in kingsguard armor.

Why not?  He's depicted wearing it the cloak at least during the books.  He uses it to cover Sansa when Joffrey strips her, for example.  After the goings on during the battle for King's Landing, Sansa keeps the cloak hidden in her room.

[Silverx2]

Gnomestress, on 21 June 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

Why not?  He's depicted wearing it the cloak at least during the books.  He uses it to cover Sansa when Joffrey strips her, for example.  After the goings on during the battle for King's Landing, Sansa keeps the cloak hidden in her room.

yes but we have read the books, A lot of viewers have not. Even last episode you can see the hound near Ned and Sandor is wearing his personal armor. They completely glossed over him joining the kings guard. They have taken a lot of his character development out of the show so far, and as a result we have only seen slight glimpses of how human he can be(giving advice to Sansa when shes about to push Joffrey, Saving Loras for the mountain)

[oneeye]

I don't know Shae was pretty ambitious and untrustworthy and tricky in the books too, just more subtle about it. In the tv show they just let her true inner show. Add in the Ros factor (I still don't remember her from the books) and it seems we got whores 2.0 in general for the tv show.

Since most of the  main female characters are in their teens, and Lena Headey doesn't seem inclined to take her clothes off as Cersei in the books did I guess they had to enhance the whores a bit to bring some HBO loving into things.

[Gnomestress]

Mad Sweeney, on 21 June 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Surely you've noticed that many things are different in the show than in the books.  I think you should wait and see who Tyrion surrounds himself with in TV King's Landing before making this statement.

I have noticed the changes.  I like some of them and endure almost all the rest.  I mention that in the first paragraph of the post you quoted.  Read it again and give what I have to say a chance?  It'll be more satisfying than picking one line apart.

In regards to who Tyrion surrounds himself with at King's Landing, if they get rid of the tribesmen that will be so much worse than the changes to Shae.  Shagga son of Dolf says that this will not do!  The tribesmen are Tyrion's main source of sure military power.  The gold cloaks and the Lannister guardsmen are just as likely to obey the queen as to obey Tyrion.  Not so much with Timmett son of Timmett.

[Gnomestress]

Silverx2, on 21 June 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

yes but we have read the books, A lot of viewers have not. Even last episode you can see the hound near Ned and Sandor is wearing his personal armor. They completely glossed over him joining the kings guard. They have taken a lot of his character development out of the show so far, and as a result we have only seen slight glimpses of how human he can be(giving advice to Sansa when shes about to push Joffrey, Saving Loras for the mountain)

Ah, I see your point now.  I think they mentioned that Ser Barristan's spot would be filled by the hound.  It's said during the scene where Barristan is 'fired'.  It's pretty much one line though, so I can see how that detail could be lost amongst the rest of that scene.

The significance of him despising knights is something that's probably missed by those that haven't read the books.  They changed how the news of how the Hound was burned was delivered to Sansa...but I think they're doing that to try to avoid making the Hound seem like a creepy old man.  In the context of the books the relationship between Sansa & the Hound fits.  In the TV show, Sandor looks older than he's portrayed in the books.  Sansa is a little older but still considered a child.  I could see how Americans could be creeped out by SandorXSansa.

[Rangers30]

oneeye, on 21 June 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

I don't know Shae was pretty ambitious and untrustworthy and tricky in the books too, just more subtle about it. In the tv show they just let her true inner show. Add in the Ros factor (I still don't remember her from the books) and it seems we got whores 2.0 in general for the tv show.

Since we only see her through Tyrion we get his idealized version of her but once in a while something slips through to show what a user she really is. I always imagined she was even worse than written just that Tyrion was looking through his rose colored glasses and didn't want to admit it.

[Unnamed]

Mad Sweeney, on 21 June 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

Because she's the Last Dragon?  I used lizard when I should've used dragon.  There's obviously some connection between Targaryens and dragons so that's what I figure happened to the kid.  The way I read it, both times, was that the baby was Drogo's payment.  And the clumsy glance to Dany's belly in ep 9 really confirms that to me.  The price for life is a death.  Baby=Drogo.  Whether she's in the tent or not.  The deformation figures to be a side effect of the bloodmagic that may or may not have happened whether she went into the tent or not.  But no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Rhaego was the price for Drogo's "life".

As for whether it's a significant point or not, well I guess I just don't know.  Maybe that's to show how dangerous bloodmagic is.  Because quite frankly, I don't see what the taboo would be if a horse could pay for a human life, even in a horse loving culture....

Hmm, it's definitely an interesting point that a horse isn't a high enough price to pay for a human life. Then again, what she bought wasn't a human life. And, in retrospect, I think that's how I see it: You can suck life out of a big, powerful creature and put it into a big, powerful human, but there's more to being human than a living body...

Also, I find it hard to reconcile this logic with MDD's peregrinations. She basically said (or strongly implied) that the horse's life was what was needed (wasn't so clear on what would be the payoff). Later, she said that Dani "knew" the price. How could she? You said all that you needed was a horse, and I'm supposed to assume that you're going to kill my baby? For me, that interpretation just didn't make any sense. So, I assumed the "price" in question was the half-life vegetative state that Drogo wound up in. The way I read it, you couldn't have "purchased" real life for Drogo with a horse or a baby...

As far as the stillbirth, I guess the fact that it came out looking like a dragon was more eye-popping to me--I just couldn't imagine that happening without it being signficant. It's one thing to say, "Your baby was born dead," but quite another to say, "You're baby was born a dead, winged lizard." Unless we were led to believe that this was common for Targaryans, it strikes me as a pretty singular event. [Bill Cosby version: "My darling, I love you very much. You've just given birth to...a lizard."]

All this being said, I absolutely DO agree that your interpretation fits better with the way they portrayed these events in the TV show. Everyone saw MDD cut her eyes at Dani's belly, and the whole thing seemed staged to portray MDD as a big fat vengeful liar. Which leaves the birth of the dragons as just a very strange, miraculous thing that happened without any obvious cause, other than Dani's desire for dragons.

For me, that's less satisfying. Magic is magic, but I like to feel that there exist some underlying "rules" that explain what's happening. If bringing Drogo back from the edge of death by sepsis would be a big damn deal, then how much bigger of a deal is to bring back dragon eggs that have been dead long enough to have fossilized? And what price was paid? As you mentioned, the explanation of the rules could be forthcoming later, but my suspicion is that this will remain a headscratcher.

-VM

[Patrick Tully]

oneeye, on 21 June 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

...Add in the Ros factor (I still don't remember her from the books)...

There is nothing wrong with your memory. She was a creation of the show.

[Wouter]

Overall this show (entire first season) has pulled it off much better than I had feared; with the very nice CGI dragons in this episode as a confirmation. While the changes to that scene were slightly unfortunate with the blackout, it was still a very impressive scene with equally impressive soundtrack. HBO has done very well with Dany, Viserys, Jorah and Rakharo throughout the season, very convincing. I noted with some joy that new viewers are indeed not quite sure if Mirri was right or Dany was right, and some noted that we are probably supposed to understand both. The essence of this plotline has survived the adaptation.

I could have done with less "sexposition" throughout the episodes though, those scenes are downright painful at times and they don't help the reputation of the series and the genre IMO. I also thought it somewhat disappointing that LF is so in-your-face in this adaptation, some banter with Varys is fine but book LF is very stingy with his secrets (even to Sansa in book 4 he says only so much about his plans). Based on the show alone, I would think Varys is portrayed as the stronger schemer as he seems more able to keep things to himself. Amusing to see that many new viewers seem to completely buy that Varys is working for the good of the realm, which seems at least doubtful in the books.

Also somewhat curious to note that a number of reactions here say that they now have sympathy for show-Sansa that they didn't have for book-Sansa - and this while her scenes in ep 10 are really only an abridged version of her final chapter in the novel, with the heads-on-spikes scene being very true to the books. And with the show-version of Sansa actually being older than book-Sansa and with show Sansa even showing a bit of a mean streak in the Jane Espenson episode (pretty much the opposite from book Sansa) one should actually expect less sympathy from the viewer.
OK, the scene was done very effectively and I guess it helps to see it visualised on TV - but IMO it was easy to visualise it from the books as well and very hard not to feel sympathy for Sansa there. I've always been shocked by those readers who stated that Sansa didn't get half of what she deserved in the books and that she should have been beaten harder.

A pity that they changed Catelyn's reaction to Ned's death quite a bit, as Ran noted in his recap, but I guess her line "we will kill em all" can be explained away as repeating Robb in the heat of the moment. At least the shots of her during the King of the north scene were ambiguous as to what she thought about it - I've read very different interpretations of Catelyn's expression there. Catelyn can still turn to "peace-monger" next season without much difficulty. I wonder if next season, we will see an explicit oath of the riverlords to Robb as this is still missing in the show.

Arya was fabulous in the series, especially in the scenes with Syrio Forel - really felt like the books were coming alive there. Jon at the wall worked very well, too, the final scene with the Night's Watch riding out was excellent.

Interesting that they have played down the flashbacks and prophetic elements so far - maybe to help surprise (new) viewers. I do hope we get Meera and Jojen Reed next season though, those are very important for Bran's storyline, also becaise Meera has a fair bit of exposition in the books that the show could copy verbatim without being campy. Bran is another character done very nicely in this show.

All in all, it was impressive. Less whores (other than Shae, a change which I don't mind so far as show-Shae actually seems more likable than book-Shae) and less sexposition please, though.

If the reactions are anything to go by, GRRM is going to selling a lot of extra books soon. Many say they can't wait 9 months (boy, are they in for a shock after the finish book 5...).
Congrats to him, this must be quite a triumph for him considering how he left the screenwriter business.

Edited by Wouter, 21 June 2011 - 02:34 PM.

[CryFenril]

I'm in agreement that changing Shae into a cold, worldly, calculating conniver who is capable of subtle deceit is a huge change from her character in the book, and can cause serious changes in her actions (or the impetus behind them) in the future.

Book Shae is easily swayed by those around her, and takes delight in things like seeing golden castles made out of clouds. She is inelegant enough to beg to go the feast in front of the one man who doesn't want her to go. She asks for her silks and satins and jewels back, she doesn't demand them. She pouts, she whines, she sulks, but she never once takes the upper hand.

Not so, our new "show-Shae". Show-shae takes what she wants, and is willing to rip someone up verbally to get it. She is aggressive, provoking, socially literate, and able to hold her own when conversing with Tyrion. She challenges him - not something I'd think he'd appreciate, considering his relationship with his sister and his father.

[CryFenril]

Corvinus, on 21 June 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how many damn legs they've got, they are still dragons. Chinese dragons don't have wings, yet they're still dragons. There are plenty of other fantasy stories where dragons have only 2 legs. The main feature of a dragon is the fire breathing ability.
So no more of this "it is known" crap. It is not known, because dragons have never been proven to have existed so that leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

Both two- and four-legged dragons are perfectly acceptable, being a fantasy creature. Biologically speaking, the wings are more likely to be the "forearms", since there are no four-legged winged animals in existence, but that's kind of moot.

The dragons are usually described as being "ungainly" and "scrabbling" when they move on land, so I have always envisioned them as using their wings (and the small claws at the "elbow") to drag themselves around, wyvern-style. Much like Drogon (who has a black body and red skin between the wingbones, just as described) climbing onto momma's shoulder.

Just me, natch.

[Mad Sweeney]

Unnamed, on 21 June 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

Hmm, it's definitely an interesting point that a horse isn't a high enough price to pay for a human life. Then again, what she bought wasn't a human life. And, in retrospect, I think that's how I see it: You can suck life out of a big, powerful creature and put it into a big, powerful human, but there's more to being human than a living body...

Also, I find it hard to reconcile this logic with MDD's peregrinations. She basically said (or strongly implied) that the horse's life was what was needed (wasn't so clear on what would be the payoff). Later, she said that Dani "knew" the price. How could she? You said all that you needed was a horse, and I'm supposed to assume that you're going to kill my baby? For me, that interpretation just didn't make any sense. So, I assumed the "price" in question was the half-life vegetative state that Drogo wound up in. The way I read it, you couldn't have "purchased" real life for Drogo with a horse or a baby...

As far as the stillbirth, I guess the fact that it came out looking like a dragon was more eye-popping to me--I just couldn't imagine that happening without it being signficant. It's one thing to say, "Your baby was born dead," but quite another to say, "You're baby was born a dead, winged lizard." Unless we were led to believe that this was common for Targaryans, it strikes me as a pretty singular event. [Bill Cosby version: "My darling, I love you very much. You've just given birth to...a lizard."]

All this being said, I absolutely DO agree that your interpretation fits better with the way they portrayed these events in the TV show. Everyone saw MDD cut her eyes at Dani's belly, and the whole thing seemed staged to portray MDD as a big fat vengeful liar. Which leaves the birth of the dragons as just a very strange, miraculous thing that happened without any obvious cause, other than Dani's desire for dragons.

For me, that's less satisfying. Magic is magic, but I like to feel that there exist some underlying "rules" that explain what's happening. If bringing Drogo back from the edge of death by sepsis would be a big damn deal, then how much bigger of a deal is to bring back dragon eggs that have been dead long enough to have fossilized? And what price was paid? As you mentioned, the explanation of the rules could be forthcoming later, but my suspicion is that this will remain a headscratcher.

-VM

Yes, she did indeed buy a human life.  Drogo, a human, would've died and instead, he lived.  I don't see how it's even a point of contention after seeing the show and MMD's overt glance at Dany's swollen tummy when saying that a death pays for a life.  I could see a small point of derivation if someone were saying that Dany/Jorah interrupting the ceremony by giving birth, but the very idea, especially with the "pregnant" glance MMD gives Dany that anything other than Rhaego as the Price for Drogo's life seems absurd.

[Stark Truth]

Ser Helman Tallhart, on 21 June 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:

They had wings, a tail and looked like dragons.  However, this debate has conjured up a damn funny image of a geeky dude nerdraging at the screen...."dammit HBO!  Those are WYVERNS!!! Not DRAGONS!!!!"  

Glad your amused.

[Bronn Stone]

Stark Truth, on 21 June 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Glad your amused.

Even more amused by a snarky comment that mixes up "your" and "you're".

Back to the episode.

Dragons without forelegs would starve.  Just like large, predatory birds without them...
Umm.  Never mind.

On the topic of changes to Shae.  They HAD to change Shae.  Ditzy Shae would not survive the aging required to keep pace with Tyrion being aged up.  The character in the books was eighteen.  Dinklage is 41.  That dynamic would have been even creepier than the idea of Mark Addy with the child-whore who gave birth to Barra.  But once you make Tyrion on the cusp of middle-age, you can't have him enamored of a childlike-whore.  "Can I keep my fur and jewels"  "Do you want to powder me up in flour?"  Ugh.

[Stark Truth]

Tywin, on 21 June 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

That's the dragon shape that makes sense from the physiology perspective and George has also said that he thinks Vermithrax from Dragonslayer is the best dragon ever to be put on film. So anyone that complains about the dragons only having two legs obviously don't quite know what they are talking about.

Look I can live with 2-legged dragons, and I didn't say they only have two legs, I said I prefer the 4-legged kind.  FYI, to say I don't know what I'm talking about is completely ridiculous.  I've been reading fantasy for 20 years, and I really don't care who the best dragon ever put on film was, because books are better than movies every time.  Furthermore there are numerous instances of Dragons with 4 limbs - D&D, AD&D, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc etc...WoW, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, MBotF (Steven Erikson for the illiterate), Eragon,  Wagner's Siegfried, Fin Fang Foom (Marvel Comics)....need I continue?

Also I have one in my backyard and I'm pretty sure he has 4 legs since I walk him everyday, twice a day.  What do you have to say to that?

[Mad Sweeney]

Bronn Stone, on 21 June 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

Even more amused by a snarky comment that mixes up "your" and "you're".

Back to the episode.

Dragons without forelegs would starve.  Just like large, predatory birds without them...
Umm.  Never mind.

On the topic of changes to Shae.  They HAD to change Shae.  Ditzy Shae would not survive the aging required to keep pace with Tyrion being aged up.  The character in the books was eighteen.  Dinklage is 41.  That dynamic would have been even creepier than the idea of Mark Addy with the child-whore who gave birth to Barra.  But once you make Tyrion on the cusp of middle-age, you can't have him enamored of a childlike-whore.  "Can I keep my fur and jewels"  "Do you want to powder me up in flour?"  Ugh.

I'm not sure your age theory works.  Tyrion is still the younger brother of Cersei and Jaime.  And although Cersei might not be the hot chick from the books, she's still not supposed to be even in her mid thirties and Jaime definitely does not appear older than early thirties.  So Tyrion is still in his late 20s or at the latest 30-31.  Explaining aged looks on a dwarf is as easy as hot pie.

[Stark Truth]

OK I looked at the opening sequence HBO uses...I thought that dragon had 4 legs but now I'm not sure, it's hard to tell.  The first time you see it it does, but the second time around it looks like it has only 2!?!?  Confusion!

Edited by Stark Truth, 21 June 2011 - 04:12 PM.

[Morrigan]

What annoys me about the show is that while it's very good, it's just shy of being great, and it could easily have been great with just a bit more effort (and I'm not talking about budget issues). And I'm not talking about stupid stuff like 4-legged dragons or Dany not being bald or whatever, but about stuff that really adds to the drama. Examples:
- The King in the North scene was good. But episode 10 was the shortest one at 53 minutes and even had some filler with Pycelle and Littlefinger/Varys, so they did have minutes to spare. Why not show the northmen arguing back and forth, and THEN have the Greatjon come up with the King in the North idea? That would have made the scene much more powerful.
- Dany's pyre. Why not have her ask Rhakaro to be her bloodrider, then have him refuse her, and show the looks on the face of the Dothraki showing they think she's stupid/crazy/etc, and THEN have them all bow down to her once they see the dragons? Why give the "blood of my blood" line to Jorah instead of Rhakaro (it's a Dothraki saying after all)?
- The Jaime/Catelyn scene. It made no sense to have it here and now. Catelyn questions Jaime about Bran because she learned of the incest through Stannis and connected the dots. Jaime admits to having pushed Bran because at this point in the story, he doesn't care anymore, he's been rotting away in a cell for months, and also, he knows Catelyn knows, so  there's no point in him denying it. It makes no sense for him to admit having pushed Bran now nor does it make sense for Catelyn to connect Bran to Jaime. And Jaime will have precious little screen time in S2 anyway, why use up one of his best scenes too early?


There are many other moments like that. They might be insignificant details to some, but to me, doing them properly would have given the scenes a lot more impact, and with little additional effort.

And then there's the significant departures. The characterizations of Shae and Cersei are completely different (especially Shae). The reasons for that are far from apparent, and in Shae's case, bringing her to court to be the "Hand's Lady" will force them to have a completely different storyline in seasons 2 and 3. Some ask to have faith in the writers, and I'm sure they'll come up with something decent, but I'm also sure (by past experience) that it won't be as good as what GRRM wrote. Oh well...

Edit: I have to say, though, that I think they really nailed the Wall scene of the last episode. Showing the Sworn brothers getting ready for the big ranging with Mormont's voice-over was just epic, I actually had a chill. (Too bad scarcely anything happens beyond the Wall until ASoS, lol...) And the dragons themselves were perfect, really good CGI there.

Edited by Morrigan, 21 June 2011 - 04:13 PM.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

Stark Truth, on 21 June 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Glad your amused.

I didn't mind that Ghost barked, either.  Heresy, I know...