Dirty Steve, on 21 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:
Major changes? How about killing off more then one person that still lives throughout. Changing Asha's name to Yara is stupid and annoying. Adding a whore named Roz and wasting time with stupid lil finger brothel scenes of him being creepy and sadistic. Bronn was never commander of the city watch. Its pure hogwash and BORING. I could go on for days. You are entitled to your opinion but so am I. Aryas scene was bootleg and cheese. She is by far the best character and the most entertaining. Looked ike they put together a cardboard tower in Pennsylvania with a bunch of larpers running around. All I wanted was Arya to be hacking away at dudes screaming WINTERFELL WINTERFELL. And IMO all the changes are major because they never happened in the book.
I will address each point in turn.
1. Killing off people still alive in the book. The only character of note is Rakharo, which I'm sure you know was done because the actor quit to go be in a big-budget Hollywood movie. And that fact aside, how does which bloodrider survives impact the story at all? Not in any meaningful way as I see and you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.
2. Changing Asha's name. They changed it to avoid Asha/Osha confusion, and I don't see why a name matters at all since it's the same character. You are of course entitled to be as angry as you want about the name change, but I think that's a pretty silly reason to be upset. And it certainly doesn't make the show boring, which seems to be your main complaint.
3. Adding a whore named Roz. I admit that Roz has been a controversial new character. I personally like the addition because the Roz scenes have added depth to other characters in my opinion. The fact that Roz cares about the murdered baby Bara and no one else seems to except Tyrion whose concern is at least partly motivated by the damaging effect the baby killings will have on the Lannister reputation among the commoners. But you still haven't given me any specific vitally important scenes that were cut to make room for Roz. And no, mere appearance in the book does not in and of itself make a scene vital. Ned's execution? Vital. Ned having sex with Cat in Winterfell? Cut, but not vital.
4. Bronn not commander of the watch. No, an ultimately irrelelvant character named Bywater was, and he gets killed by the end of Book 2. So why include him when you already have an established character in Bronn? The point of Bywater is that he removed someone loyal to Cersei (Janos Slynt) and installed someone loyal to himself (why not Bronn instead of Bywater?) What exactly did Bywater do in the book that is so damned important that it renders the entire series "hogwash" and "BORING" because it's not there?
5. Entitled to opinion. Yes, yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But what we are not entitled to is to have our opinions go unchallenged, especially when said opinions are posted on a message board. Nor, just because an opinion exists, is that opinion entitled to respect if it has no support.
6. Arya not screaming Winterfell. She still attacked. She is older in the show than the book and smart enough not to give away who she is by bellowing Winterfell.
7. All changes are major because they never happened in the book. This is the main reason why I cannot respect your opinion. I do of course respect your right to have your opinion and to express your opinion. But that does not mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
pretzalz, on 21 April 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:
As for the scene itself, I was disappointed watching it, mainly because it was one of the scenes that I remember the best so I notice the differences more. But at the same time, I thought how it was done worked. Let's be honest, them traipsing through the woods would have been boring television. So the question is it worth it to have Arya and friends run away only for for Arya to mount a suicidal rescue mission when you aren't going to show the intervening bits, or is it clearer to have Arya just mount the suicidal charge when it is clear that she had the opportunity to escape. From this perspective I like how they did it, and I don't think it had much to do with them being cheap. I think this also necessitated the battle being in a less fortified position. It is much harder to suggest the possibility of escape from a fortified position without actually having the escape happen.
This is an opinion I can respect because it is backed up with reasons, goes beyond book purism, acknowledges the difference in medium between TV and novel, and recognizes that a scene can still be effective for what it is even though it may not entirely match up to his vision from the book. I disagree
that the scense should be in any way disappointing, but respect the opinion because it is a well-explained and nuanced opinion.
Edited by zippypoodle, 22 April 2012 - 01:08 PM.