Craster's: The Definition of Filler

[DaveyJoe]

My problem with the filler from this episode is this: The Wildlings and The Magnar sent the little NOrthern kid running to the wall saying they were on the way... The little kid got there lickity split and the NW Crew & Jon directly head north to Craster. Where the HELL are those wildlings and why are they taking soooo much longer then the little 6 year old they sent running?

They're waiting for Mance's signal. They're in place, but Mance is traveling with 100,000 Wildlings including children and elderly people.

[Starksmustwin]

I hope you realize it's legitimate to compare the two versions. I hope you realize it's legitimate to prefer the books. I hope you realize it's legitimate to think the show would be much better had HBO stuck more closely to the books.

There, you see: one can clearly know the difference and still dislike the numerous faults of the show.

Is it legitimate to compare? Sure. But to completely damn the TV version because it doesn't have countless ways to tell it's story (exposition, for instance) like the books do? Nope. That's not legitimate at all. To prefer one over the other? Absolutely. Have at it. I personally prefer the books as well. And as to your last point, it's simply not possible with the limitations of TV. In the books, we get chapter after chapter inside of Jon's head. We know exactly how he feels about everything. In the show, we get 10 minutes every other week and the only things we know for sure is what we can see him do and hear him say. So again, it's impossible to know TV Jon the way we know book Jon. So, changes need to be made. D & D can't focus on book readers. They have to make sure fans that don't know the story understand it. Which is why they try to show Jon taking a leading role and then being heroic.

On top of that, they have to take into account fan favorites. The Hound, Bronn, Pod, etc are getting more time because people enjoy seeing them. So, again, more deviations are required to accommodate them. Plus, having a million different characters, like so many other things they have to cut, simply wouldn't work for a 10 hour per season TV series.

As long as the over all arcs stay the same, then I'll be happy. So far, they haven't left out anything big and at the same time, they've spruced up certain things that wouldn't have translated well to TV. It's not perfect. But it definitely works and other than a few people on this board who never seem happy with anything, most people I've spoken with believe this show is one of the best on TV. I agree with those people. It's a very fun and entertaining show.

[Fat Trell]

The problem with this scene is not that it is filler. The problem is that it isn't particularly well-thought out or relevant filler.

If the goal here is to kill time, what is the point of introducing an entire new plot thread only to end it in 2 episodes?

What is the point of having your Vargo Hoat stand-in, who you gave the interesting assignment of tracking down the remaining Starks, die during his first conflict?

Building Jon's competence up is a decent enough motive. A motive which wouldn't exist if the show had not done everything to detract from Jon's ability and esteem in the eyes of his superiors for 3 and 1/4 seasons. This problem is a nonstarter as well when one considers Jon is about to have a very prominent moment of glory in a few weeks. Why do we need to hammer this home anymore?

There was much more mileage in Locke's story imo. Less so with the mutineers but that might be the gratuitous rape clouding my judgment.

[sj4iy]

Look, if you don't find Jon's book story believable, how can I persuade you it is? Why would I even try?

Because you seem to be trying to convince people that the book is better than the episode because it is more believable. That's why I said "prove your argument". It's the basis for debate.

I can only repeat it was written as a borderline case in terms of believability, which is why the author did bother do write the scene with Sam checking history books, most probably. As for a comparison between that and the last episode, I think it's pretty obvious which is more believable of the two. Elections, in both our world and Martin's universe, are seldom logical, and they're known to be influenced by manipulations of all kinds all he time. Doesn't mean every manipulation is necessarily believable, but in the book we at least witness the entire manipulation, so we can decide for ourselves. Charging a camp with all guns blazing is just a stupid tactics, in whatever universe. It's not one possible outcome out of three. It's just stupid. Believing Locke that hounds are in a cabin and the cabin is therefore to be avoided is stupid. Hey, it's moronic even. Mutineers have hounds, and they keep them in a cabin?! Where did they get the hounds? It's lame writing. Simple as that. It's not the matter of odds or believability. TV Jon is a moron.

Sam made it so that Jon was 'put on the ballot', so to speak. Still isn't very believable that Jon would win the popular vote when many people still believe him to be a turncloack (as we see in ADWD later on). Of course the mutineers don't have any hounds...but Craster could have- he had plenty of other animals like sheep, rabbits and pigs- why are dogs so 'ridiculous'?

And name-calling (Jon is a moron) is pretty pointless when you can't seem to back up the reason why you think he is.

But OK, let's speculate a little. Let's say that both events, Jon's appointment and TV Craster's fighting, are equally problematic. Is the show going to lose the former? Of course it isn't. Jon is going to be chosen as the LC in the show as well. So, instead of dealing with one unbelievable event in Jon's arc, the show added one more. How is that a good thing?!

No, the show didn't. They changed the timing, they added the trial, and then added scenes where Jon proves his leadership skills- helping the men in the training yard, warning them of the danger the mutineers pose, asking the men for volunteers and then finally having him lead those men to kill the mutineers. None of that was in the books, and it expands Jon's character in a way that didn't happen in the books before he was elected LC. And show Jon still has more opportunities to prove his abilities in the fight ahead. You've yet to back up your assertion as to why any of that is "unbelievable".

And, by the way, it wasn't just talking ravens in the books. Jon did prove himself in the battle. And he was judged from the very start as a leader material, by both Aemon and Jeor (and by Qhorin, but only we readers know that). The two biggest authorities were grooming Jon for commander, and the entire NW knew that. Granted, Sam says it in the show, too, in season one, but alas, the show pretty successfully ruined Jon's reputation afterwards, so Sam's words have very little meaning in the show universe.

Jon proved himself in battle to less than 30-40 men who were left at Castle Black while the rest were out fighting the Wildling feints. When those other men came back, several of the men he 'proved' himself to were dead, and Jon was thrown into the ice cells to die. He was only taken out when Aemon insisted, and then given a suicide mission as a way to prove his 'innocence'...which ends up miraculously interrupted when Stannis' men sweep in and defeat Mance Rayder's forces. Jon is never given a trial, and many of the men believe he's a traitor. It was pretty unbelievable that the men would choose to elect Jon over more experienced men like Cotter Pyke when there were still lingering questions about his loyalty. The show has resolved that issue by giving Jon many other opportunities to prove himself before the big battle comes.

[trgryn-strk-lnstr-mrtell]

If the goal here is to kill time, what is the point of introducing an entire new plot thread only to end it in 2 episodes?

What is the point of having your Vargo Hoat stand-in, who you gave the interesting assignment of tracking down the remaining Starks, die during his first conflict?

i've chosen to see it as D&D's attempt to pull a GRRM! and didnt quite manage to pull it off well :lol:

I remember thinking along those very lines regarding both Oberyn (at least he didnt get a POV) and Quentyn as well....

[Runaway Penguin]

They're waiting for Mance's signal. They're in place, but Mance is traveling with 100,000 Wildlings including children and elderly people.

And the "signal" was given :) Unwittingly... Which is a bit of shame, I expected Jon doing it on purpose to get the raider group attack too early.

[DaveyJoe]

Because you seem to be trying to convince people that the book is better than the episode because it is more believable. That's why I said "prove your argument". It's the basis for debate.

The mental gymnastics around here are entertaining. People tend to make excuses for elements in the book that they would ridicule if they were show inventions.

[sj4iy]

i've chosen to see it as D&D's attempt to pull a GRRM! and didnt quite manage to pull it off well :lol:

I remember thinking along those very lines regarding both Oberyn (at least he didnt get a POV) and Quentyn as well....

I felt the same way about Quentyn. I wonder if it was supposed to be a joke from Martin, because it certainly read that way.

[gash]

the sooner you lot can separate the books from the tv show the sooner you can actually enjoy the show. this happened for me in season 2. i'd highly recommend it.

[Mr Fixit]

i've chosen to see it as D&D's attempt to pull a GRRM! and didnt quite manage to pull it off well :lol:

I remember thinking along those very lines regarding both Oberyn (at least he didnt get a POV) and Quentyn as well....

Oberyn's a great guy. He fails, but it was time well spent. Quentyn, however... that's just pointless stuff.

[sj4iy]

The mental gymnastics around here are entertaining. People tend to make excuses for elements in the book that they would ridicule if they were show inventions.

Exactly. Some people automatically assume that since it was in the book, it was better...no matter what.

[DaveyJoe]

And the "signal" was given :) Unwittingly... Which is a bit of shame, I expected Jon doing it on purpose to get the raider group attack too early.

Yeah, that is an interesting observation, I wonder how Jon's story will play out in the next few episodes. It's just funny that people think it's a plot hole that Tormund's group hasn't reached the Wall yet. Mance told him to wait for his signal, and that's what they're doing.

[trgryn-strk-lnstr-mrtell]

And the "signal" was given :) Unwittingly... Which is a bit of shame, I expected Jon doing it on purpose to get the raider group attack too early.

crasters keep is supposed to be 60 miles from Wall...and Tormund and others are even further south than that (or is it East?) ...i doubt Crasters keep is big enough to count as "the biggest fire the North has ever seen!!" Mance's one should be on a MUCH MUCH larger scale...the flames and smoke should rise significantly higher than 700 ft!! cant wait to see it :drunk:

I felt the same way about Quentyn. I wonder if it was supposed to be a joke from Martin, because it certainly read that way.

:agree:

the sooner you lot can separate the books from the tv show the sooner you can actually enjoy the show. this happened for me in season 2. i'd highly recommend it.

^^ true story (for me too)

[Miodrag]

Is it legitimate to compare? Sure. But to completely damn the TV version because it doesn't have countless ways to tell it's story (exposition, for instance) like the books do? Nope. That's not legitimate at all. To prefer one over the other? Absolutely. Have at it. I personally prefer the books as well. And as to your last point, it's simply not possible with the limitations of TV. In the books, we get chapter after chapter inside of Jon's head. We know exactly how he feels about everything. In the show, we get 10 minutes every other week and the only things we know for sure is what we can see him do and hear him say. So again, it's impossible to know TV Jon the way we know book Jon. So, changes need to be made. D & D can't focus on book readers. They have to make sure fans that don't know the story understand it. Which is why they try to show Jon taking a leading role and then being heroic.

So, where do changes to Jon's season 2 and season 3 arcs belong? How did his flirting with Ygritte help? How did the omission of his learning from Qhorin help? How did Ygritte ridiculing him all the time help? How did Ygritte saving his life - while hitting him with three arrows - help?

On top of that, they have to take into account fan favorites. The Hound, Bronn, Pod, etc are getting more time because people enjoy seeing them. So, again, more deviations are required to accommodate them. Plus, having a million different characters, like so many other things they have to cut, simply wouldn't work for a 10 hour per season TV series.

As long as the over all arcs stay the same, then I'll be happy. So far, they haven't left out anything big and at the same time, they've spruced up certain things that wouldn't have translated well to TV. It's not perfect. But it definitely works and other than a few people on this board who never seem happy with anything, most people I've spoken with believe this show is one of the best on TV. I agree with those people. It's a very fun and entertaining show.

But, why is it OK to take into account fan favorites from the show, while it's disregarding so many fan favorites from the books? Don't get me wrong, they have the right to give as much screen time to any character as they want. HBO payed for their right to do that. But, fan favorites from the books were cut - Strong Belwas definitely, Vargo definitely, Coldhands probably - only for some new fan favorites to be given more screen time? Not to mention how odd is the whole concept of "fan favorites" and catering to that concept.

And, speaking of Sandor, how is his TV character even comparable to his book counterpart? Practically, is there a Sandor line from the books they kept in the show (other than lines they gave to Littlefinger, and those few remarks around his combat with Beric)? Just reread any of chapters with Sandor, especially his ASOS stuff, and you'll see what brilliant material was entirely omitted, and replaced for what? Why is Sandor teaching Arya anything at all? Isn't he the cruel pragmatist? Doesn't he think Arya's going to die anyway? Why does he tutor her at all? Isn't Arya only a money to him? I mean, that's how he's portrayed in the show - a cruel, merciless, pragmatist, that has no reason whatsoever to question his cynical worldviews: so why does he even care about Arya at all, then?

And, once more, I'm not denying the show is fun and entertaining to many people. I respect that. But, debates like this, in a site like this, should go beyond that, I think.

[Good Guy Garlan]

The mental gymnastics around here are entertaining. People tend to make excuses for elements in the book that they would ridicule if they were show inventions.

Oh, definetely. Brienne's chapters in Feast are described (I'm not making this up) as "a profound and existentialist look at the effects of war in the common people, as well as clever world-building" while every bit of a deviation in the show is "OMG, nonsense, plot holes galore, someone kill these hacks already!"

I mean, it's obviously ok to prefer one medium to another. Personally, I like the books much more and, I admit it, I can be a bit of a purist as well. But how on earth do you expect to evaluate the differences objectively if you don't accept the books' criticisms and pretty much believe the books are perfect and impossible to improve, as people here seem to think?

[Alaynsa Starne]

By that logic, the show nor the books should have emphasized Ned Stark, since he was going to be dead before the end of the first book. You might as well argue that paying Sean Bean whatever they paid him was pointless, because he just died. The screenwriters know better what they are doing than we do, so it's up to them to make those decisions.

Pretty clear that they had checked all of the tents already before it even got to that point. And keep in mind, these ladies don't trust them anymore than they trusted the other Crows.

Because it seems that Coldhands was an unnecessary character that didn't contribute to the plot and could have confused a lot of people - didn't you just argue that this whole scene was a waste of time and money? Coldhands would have been an even bigger waste. Having Jon and his men tidy things up closes that arc, imo. And the show needs all of the excitement it can get with the books that it's about to adapt.

Why would Arya be depressed? Not everyone gets 'depressed' when a loved one dies. Some hold the grief in, others get angry. Arya is angry.

Nope, I never did assume that. Why? Because then the viewers would see the betrayal coming from a mile off, and that scene is all about the surprise of it. Keeping Locke there would have ruined the surprise completely.

Except that Ned had an impact on the story. He had an arc, development, and his story ultimately set up several main arcs in the series. The villains at CK did none of that. They were bad guys everyone, including the show-only watchers, knew would be taken out. There's no way either of Bran's or Jon's story arcs were set up to end there because it wouldn't make any sense. I'm not saying that characters with build-up can't die, I'm just saying that their deaths can't be meaningless and I think it was pretty obvious two main characters wouldn't die in the middle of nowhere with no impact whatsoever. So why spend so much screen time on the mutineers raping and rambling while drinking out of skulls instead of showing something a bit more pertinent to the over-all plot? I understand that the show writers know what's going to happen in the long-term and that they know what goes into making a show, but I'm also not going to pretend that gives them a free pass to do whatever with no criticism at all. I personally think that CK could have been edited down more effectively and still have had the same impact as far as character development.

I didn't realize that they checked all the huts already, but I guess that makes sense seeing as they were laying out the bodies. Also, even if Craster's wives didn't fully trust Jon, why does that keep him from asking? It's not a major issue or anything, I'm just confused about why that point was left open-ended seeing as there was some build up to it in the previous episode and it seems that closure of it in the future, if there is any at all, will be somewhat awkward since it wasn't handled immediately.

And Coldhands does contribute to the plot. He leads them to BR. Bran knows he has to go North, but how does he know where exactly to go? Is he supposed to search the entire stretch of land north of the Wall until he happens to run into the specific weirwood he's looking for? I don't see how introducing one character to clean up CK and guide Bran to where he needs to get is an even bigger waste than what we've seen these past two episodes. I still think they will need to introduce CH because how are a crippled boy, a mentally handicapped man, and two teenagers, one of whom is extremely ill, supposed to get safely where they need to be (through WW, wights, wildlings, etc) without help and without a map? Also, maybe I didn't communicate this effectively, but I don't have a problem with Jon being the one to take out the mutineers. It was necessary to establish Jon as a potential leader in the future. I just think there was so much time spent on it when it could have been handled more cleanly to maintain the bulk of other relevant plot lines.

And here's my problem with Arya: she just gets vengeful, but still maintains a positive attitude, which is what we've already seen from her a million times. It's even stranger because the deaths of Cat and Robb are NOT the same as the deaths of Yoren or Lommy or Mycah. How is it possible that she's suffered the worst losses of her life, but has not changed or developed since the beginning of S2? It's understandable that she's angry, but every hope that she was clinging to since Ned died were crushed, and all we get from her is a few names added to her hit list? It makes her kind of needlessly one-dimensional, IMO. (And I'm still legitimately curious about why she wants to kill Beric and Thoros. I've clearly forgotten something.)

And if Locke weren't going to stick around, why was he there? Just to serve in this teeny tiny arc that lasted 2 episodes? I assumed that he would serve a greater purpose in the arc on the Wall. I liked him and wanted to see more of him, and assumed his antics would somehow further the plot. So I was just kind of disappointed and had kind of a "Huh. That's all?" moment when he died. Obviously that's just a personal preference but there was just something kind of meh and anticlimactic about Locke's death.

[Fat Trell]

i've chosen to see it as D&D's attempt to pull a GRRM! and didnt quite manage to pull it off well :lol:

I remember thinking along those very lines regarding both Oberyn (at least he didnt get a POV) and Quentyn as well....

Hadn't thought of it like that before :lol:

This of course begs the question; who wins in a fight? The Red Viper of Dorne or The FOCKING LEGEND of Gin Alley?

[gash]

if AFFC was given a faithful adaption in the tv show, it would be cancelled in a season.

[gash]

Except that Ned had an impact on the story. He had an arc, development, and his story ultimately set up several main arcs in the series. The villains at CK did none of that. They were bad guys everyone, including the show-only watchers, knew would be taken out. There's no way either of Bran's or Jon's story arcs were set up to end there because it wouldn't make any sense. I'm not saying that characters with build-up can't die, I'm just saying that their deaths can't be meaningless and I think it was pretty obvious two main characters wouldn't die in the middle of nowhere with no impact whatsoever. So why spend so much screen time on the mutineers raping and rambling while drinking out of skulls instead of showing something a bit more pertinent to the over-all plot? I understand that the show writers know what's going to happen in the long-term and that they know what goes into making a show, but I'm also not going to pretend that gives them a free pass to do whatever with no criticism at all. I personally think that CK could have been edited down more effectively and still have had the same impact as far as character development.

I didn't realize that they checked all the huts already, but I guess that makes sense seeing as they were laying out the bodies. Also, even if Craster's wives didn't fully trust Jon, why does that keep him from asking? It's not a major issue or anything, I'm just confused about why that point was left open-ended seeing as there was some build up to it in the previous episode and it seems that closure of it in the future, if there is any at all, will be somewhat awkward since it wasn't handled immediately.

And Coldhands does contribute to the plot. He leads them to BR. Bran knows he has to go North, but how does he know where exactly to go? Is he supposed to search the entire stretch of land north of the Wall until he happens to run into the specific weirwood he's looking for? I don't see how introducing one character to clean up CK and guide Bran to where he needs to get is an even bigger waste than what we've seen these past two episodes. I still think they will need to introduce CH because how are a crippled boy, a mentally handicapped man, and two teenagers, one of whom is extremely ill, supposed to get safely where they need to be (through WW, wights, wildlings, etc) without help and without a map? Also, maybe I didn't communicate this effectively, but I don't have a problem with Jon being the one to take out the mutineers. It was necessary to establish Jon as a potential leader in the future. I just think there was so much time spent on it when it could have been handled more cleanly to maintain the bulk of other relevant plot lines.

And here's my problem with Arya: she just gets vengeful, but still maintains a positive attitude, which is what we've already seen from her a million times. It's even stranger because the deaths of Cat and Robb are NOT the same as the deaths of Yoren or Lommy or Mycah. How is it possible that she's suffered the worst losses of her life, but has not changed or developed since the beginning of S2? It's understandable that she's angry, but every hope that she was clinging to since Ned died were crushed, and all we get from her is a few names added to her hit list? It makes her kind of needlessly one-dimensional, IMO. (And I'm still legitimately curious about why she wants to kill Beric and Thoros. I've clearly forgotten something.)

And if Locke weren't going to stick around, why was he there? Just to serve in this teeny tiny arc that lasted 2 episodes? I assumed that he would serve a greater purpose in the arc on the Wall. I liked him and wanted to see more of him, and assumed his antics would somehow further the plot. So I was just kind of disappointed and had kind of a "Huh. That's all?" moment when he died. Obviously that's just a personal preference but there was just something kind of meh and anticlimactic about Locke's death.

why do you want absolutely everything in a tv show to relate to main story arcs? and have you ever considered that maybe they will have significance in later episodes?

[Widows_Blood]

I hope you realize it's legitimate to compare the two versions. I hope you realize it's legitimate to prefer the books. I hope you realize it's legitimate to think the show would be much better had HBO stuck more closely to the books.

There, you see: one can clearly know the difference and still dislike the numerous faults of the show.

I'm sure you will agree with this line of reason if the show depicted multiple seasons of brienne looking for a maid of four and ten with auburn hair, Jon counting fish, Tyrion admiring turtles, Dany fingering herself for two seasons. Or how about Quentyn? The wonderful POV that dies anti-climatically, rendering all those chapters of his useless. An entire season of Jaime diddling around the Riverlands, an entire season of Cersei going insane.

The books have plenty of filler, pointless characters, other memorable characters that disappear into irrelevance; yet for whatever reason, the show is always had to a different standard. Maybe the show wouldn't have to change so much if George kept his books to a manageable character list. Maybe the show wouldn't have to change so much if characters like Stannis weren't sitting around doing nothing for 90 percent of the book. Or if Bran was given more than a couple of chapters in the span of around 1800 pages. But i'll leave you to continue worshiping at the altar of GRRM.