2. Agreed, for the most part. Robb being more affirmative makes him a less sympathetic character, as far as traditional tragedy goes. I think they probably decided to go that route because in making Robb a more visible character, they need the audience to relate more to him. As a result, they want the [modern] audience to identify with the love v. duty conflict, and they seek to develop in the viewer a greater hope they True Love Will Prevail. Personally, I don't think the Red Wedding is any less significant for being the result of a mistake of passion, as opposed to a mistake borne of grief.
3. I also would have preferred that. But, economy of story is huge in film. George can throw an extra page in if he needs, the show only has so many minutes per episode, and so many episodes per season, to convey as much information as they can. Even an oblique reference to the Westerling's possible involvement would necessitate: A) The rest of the Westerlings as cast-members (father, mother, several younger brothers to serve as squires, if I recall), and sufficient background/exposition on the family At least one scene of mother Westerling subtly slipping Jeyne "something" in some tea, C) A scene where the audience is given enough information to know what was given Jeyne (probably post-RW), and D) a scene with Tywin granting them their reward. Without those necessary elements, the reality of the collusion is vague at best. I suspect they either need to make it a clear and important enough part of the plot to dedicate the screen time to it, or cut it and simplify.
I'm willing to bet that ultimately they made the change to Talisa simply to avoid having to cast the rest of her family, and find a castle to call The Crag. I actually agree it'd be nice if they had been a bit more faithful to Robb's Western Campaign, but I don't have the problems other do with it, I suppose.
Well if worst came to worse they could simply have cut the Westerling involvement in the RW altogether. And really the only other person they'd need to cast would be Sybelle Westerling and perhaps a couple of featured extras. The Crag wouldn't be a problem if they just showed the inside, because as I already said, sets can be re-used but made to look sufficiently different that you can't tell.
You're essentially saying that the books are so darn good (and they are good, of course) that any old producer or director could take the source material and spin them into a show as good as GoT, so long as he/she follows the books.
D&D have no great talent of their own? everything good about the show comes from the books? give me a break. you're really minimizing what they bring to the table.
how about the actors? the music? the costumes? the stunts? the FX? does everything good about their contributions come directly from the pages of the book as well.
i do actually agree that some of the changes are inexplicable and frustrating, but I would never say that the TV show in and of itself is less than superb and that the creators of the show are less than wildly talented
All of those things have been great. So far as I'm aware though D+D did not play all of the roles in the show, they did not compose the music, design the costumes or the sets or make the FX. Obviously not anyone could make the show, D+D aren't completely incompetent. I'll even concede that they have had a few successes in making book deviations -most notably Theon's arc (until the end anyway.) - but it's been too hit and miss for me to give them much credit.
Edited by protar, 09 June 2012 - 12:51 PM.