Jump to content

What the show got better than the books


Tianzi

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Ok you seem to be completely incapable of separating the problems with the book  and their high level solutions, with individual character decisions, which makes discussing this very difficult. If you could PLEASE try and just concentrate on what I'm saying rather than getting obsessed about White washing or some nonsense, because its really unhelpful.

Lets just take it from D&D's perspective shall we. 

You have to produce a tv show which has at most maybe 30 episodes left in order to tell the entirety of GRRMs novels, including books he hasn't written. You also have a limited budget, ability to film in different locations and logistical issues. OK? Right so from that point you need to be reasonably economical with which stories you tell and focus on those that move the plot ahead and get the pieces set up for the end game. Those pieces are generally the major characters ( Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Sansa etc ) and also playing out the major events so that the end game can occur (Jon dying, Dany being taken away). That is your one major priority, and the most difficult piece of the puzzle.

You have GRRMs novels which now feature a whole host of new locations, characters and plots. The novels are very long, the major characters don't move a lot forward plot-wise during them, and there are numerous plot-lines that veer off in wildly different directions, many taking the scenic route to their destination. 

So Briennes storyline in the book for instance, you look at it. Does Brienne in the book help us get to our destination in an efficient satisfying manner? The answer is no, her storytelling is not efficient at all, its like a long slow bubble bath.. it takes its time, has some fun and ultimately doesn't result in much other than her bumping into LS. Its a lot of pages, and for what? You may say character growth, but could that be achieved whilst still helping to advance the main plot and surrounding stories? Thats clearly what the intention of the show was. 
Now you don't like the solution. I don't care. I'm trying to help you understand that there are fundamental problems when adapting Martins work.

You can look at all of the storylines in the book and lay out the issues they create when it comes to adaptation, and on the whole the choices the producers made were the correct ones, because they led to a much more streamlined concise version of events, which is their priority. The purpose of the show is NOT to create a word for word recreation of the books, but to create a show that works on its own steam. Lets not pretend there is no characterisation in the show either, the characters might not always be the same as the books, but who cares? Again not the purpose of the show. 

 
 

Well, to concentrate on what you're saying, you'd have to be saying something concrete and not the same rehash of budget/time constraints which has been debunked a billion times already. They have plenty of time and budget for their additional storylines and original characters , and none of them serves the major plotlines, afaik.

On Brienne : If you feel that it would've been a waste of time, I'd rather cut her screentime entirely. What we got lasy season WAS a waste of time ; she did nothing, her character went nowhere. She even made a fool of herself by being turned down by the Stark girls twice. Might as well not have her at all, thank you.

At the end of the day, it is, or rather was, supposed to be an adaptation of the books. Does it mean keeping everything exactly as it is ? No . Does it mean keeping the essence and the spirit of the story and the characters ? Hell yes. Did the show accomplish that ? Hell no.

It is really ridiculous to be mad at people who expected an adaptation and who clearly were disappointed. They want to do their own story with their own characters ? Good for them, let them do it. But they can't say they're going to adapt the books, then completely betray everything they (the books) stand for, all the while benefitting from them (Ned's death; RW;...) and hiding behind George's skirts when they have blacklash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

[snip for length]

 
 

Yes, there are fundamental problems in adapting AFFC into a TV show.  You contend that the show's problems are a result of this.  We call bullshit, because they didn't address those problems in a believable way.  They don't address those problems with the characterization that the SHOW has already established.  Jaime taking Cersei and pushing aside the white book shits on his SHOW development up to that point.  Sansa walking into WF shits on her season 4 development (and logic).  

So if the problem is the book storyline can't work on the show (as you say Sansa's can't), that doesn't excuse things like Sansa's actual show storyline and the logic black hole at Moat Cailin.  Have her refuse and LF force her?  Instantly gets more logical.  Come up with some other explanation to get her there, such as kidnapped while trying to raise the Norther Lords, or betrayed by the Umber's who apparently side with the Bolton's take her there, which fits in with the player the show wants her to become, gets her active in the Northern storyline, and doesn't require everyone involved to behave dumber than a sack of rotten potatoes.  Then they still get their "emotionally powerful" Sansa rape, but they get there in a way that makes sense within the context of the SHOW universe.  

I'm not going to crucify them for trying to make changes.  You'll never see me talk about Aegon, or any individual thing they cut from Jon/Dany (although in total I will talk about it).  It's the stupid things they make up to fill them that get us so annoyed.  And people drinking the piss replacements D&D offer them and calling it Arbor gold.  

ETA:  That's not getting into adaptational gripes, like the complete 180 of Jaime, or the dumbing down of Ned/Jon/Brienne, or shitting on Martin's themes.  I'm solely talking about the sense the show makes within its function as a tv show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

Well, to concentrate on what you're saying, you'd have to be saying something concrete and not the same rehash of budget/time constraints which has been debunked a billion times already. They have plenty of time and budget for their additional storylines and original characters , and none of them serves the major plotlines, afaik.

On Brienne : If you feel that it would've been a waste of time, I'd rather cut her screentime entirely. What we got lasy season WAS a waste of time ; she did nothing, her character went nowhere. She even made a fool of herself by being turned down by the Stark girls twice. Might as well not have her at all, thank you.

At the end of the day, it is, or rather was, supposed to be an adaptation of the books. Does it mean keeping everything exactly as it is ? No . Does it mean keeping the essence and the spirit of the story and the characters ? Hell yes. Did the show accomplish that ? Hell no.

It is really ridiculous to be mad at people who expected an adaptation and who clearly were disappointed. They want to do their own story with their own characters ? Good for them, let them do it. But they can't say they're going to adapt the books, then completely betray everything they (the books) stand for, all the while benefitting from them (Ned's death; RW;...) and hiding behind George's skirts when they have blacklash.

Your argument really just boils down to 'Its not enough like the books'. Which is never going to wash with me because I find that rather irrelevant, and in some ways a positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Your argument really just boils down to 'Its not enough like the books'. Which is never going to wash with me because I find that rather irrelevant, and in some ways a positive.

No, your strawman of our argument is that it isn't like the books.  It's a lot easier to argue against than the real thing I'll give you, but it does serve to make us angrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Your argument really just boils down to 'Its not enough like the books'. Which is never going to wash with me because I find that rather irrelevant, and in some ways a positive.

No, my argument is that

1) It's not at all like the books, so I don't see why it exists in the first place (given that it's supposed to be an adaptation).

2) It's bad even on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

No, my argument is that

1) It's not at all like the books, so I don't see why it exists in the first place (given that it's supposed to be an adaptation).

2) It's bad even on its own.

1) Obviously thats not true. It still has a lot of similarities to the book, saying otherwise its clearly ridiculous. What you are saying is its not like the books enough for you

2) And millions of people around the world would disagree with you. But fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

1) Obviously thats not true. It still has a lot of similarities to the book, saying otherwise its clearly ridiculous. What you are saying is its not like the books enough for you

2) And millions of people around the world would disagree with you. But fair enough.

1) yet you don't provide any concrete argument to convince me.

2) The millions watching the show are mostly casual viewers who admit to put their brains off and just enjoy the ride. Not to mention popular =/=good. Michael Bay's movies are popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

1) yet you don't provide any concrete argument to convince me.

2) The millions watching the show are mostly casual viewers who admit to put their brains off and just enjoy the ride. Not to mention popular =/=good. Michael Bay's movies are popular.

How could I convice you when you are so entrenched in book love

yes the show is made with casual viewers in mind, I'm glad you recognise that. That doesn't make it dumb but it has to make allowances that most people will not be able to follow what's going on. I have no problem with that either. The show has been mainstream since day 1, and hence why it's so popular

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

How could I convice you when you are so entrenched in book love

yes the show is made with casual viewers in mind, I'm glad you recognise that. That doesn't make it dumb but it has to make allowances that most people will not be able to follow what's going on. I have no problem with that either. The show has been mainstream since day 1, and hence why it's so popular

1) Now that's what I call a strawman argument. Just shows that you really have no idea what to say, so you resort to that. I was genuinely expecting some compelling arguments, I'm disappointed.

2) But that's precisely the issue. GoT, while let's say less ambitious than ASoIaF, is large scale, long-winded story (or at least is meant to be). It's not a sit-com. I can casually watch Friends, episodes out of order and all, because it is not a very serious show. Got takes itself very seriously as "intense drama" or whatever. You can't claim that and make you show for casual viewers at the same time, or it's a bloody mess (which it is). A good show would have understood they needed to make a choice, and risk losing some casual viewers for the sake of quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

1) yet you don't provide any concrete argument to convince me.

2) The millions watching the show are mostly casual viewers who admit to put their brains off and just enjoy the ride. Not to mention popular =/=good. Michael Bay's movies are popular.

The show is not made for some fundamentalists who see Martin's books as true religion. Martin himself is highly critical of any fanatical approach.

I am sure that Martin himself knows best what adapting books to a visual medium needs, actually when he wrote these books he was quite sure that they could never be adapted. 

Dismissing casual viewers as those who eclipse their brain or who don't have much to eclipse is simply arrogant. You know nothing about them, obviously not, since they never chose to seek communication with you. Most of them are probably people who have better things to do than posting in forums like that. For example Mr Obama ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying they don't have a lot to eclipse, merely that they chose to do so.  And that's fine.  I can watch Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Frozen, or Zootopia all day and enjoy myself.  But the second someone tries to present those as well thought ought drama, it becomes farcical. 

I can enjoy T&A (or as the partner on this job calls it, Tits & Dragons) if I'm expecting T&A (or T&D).  But when the show starts off and advertises itself as well thought out drama, I expect well thought out drama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

The show is not made for some fundamentalists who see Martin's books as true religion. Martin himself is highly critical of any fanatical approach.

I am sure that Martin himself knows best what adapting books to a visual medium needs, actually when he wrote these books he was quite sure that they could never be adapted. 

Dismissing casual viewers as those who eclipse their brain or who don't have much to eclipse is simply arrogant. You know nothing about them, obviously not, since they never chose to seek communication with you. Most of them are probably people who have better things to do than posting in forums like that. For example Mr Obama ;) 

Say I like Jane Eyre (which I do), and someone makes a new adaptation : instead of having Jane Eyre fall progressively in love with Mr Rochester, he assaults her, and she decides to exact bloody revenge by killing his ex wife while he marries and is deeple in love with Blanche Ingram. Would you call it a good adaptation ? Would you say it was because of the change of medium ? Would I be called a fundamentalist, whoonly worships Miss Bronte ? I doubt it. 

Reread my post . I did not say casual viewers were idiots ; I said they themselves admitted they only watched the show to be entertained and didn't like to think about it. Which is valid, but not the people D&D should cater to. Don't really see how Obama has anything to do with this, but okay.

(By the by, since we're speaking of Jane Eyre, I recommend the BBC adaptation. Very satisfying, with some changes but always true to the spirit of the content, while having its own flavor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Why shouldn't the show cater for the vast majority of those people who watch it? 

No reason.  But if you are catering to people who are watching it as a sensory experience, watching the action on the screen as it happens, with no expectation of the action making logical sense, and not knowing who half the characters are, then you aren't prestige drama, you are eye candy fare.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

No reason.  But if you are catering to people who are watching it as a sensory experience, watching the action on the screen as it happens, with no expectation of the action making logical sense, and not knowing who half the characters are, then you aren't prestige drama, you are eye candy fare.  

No, you are catering for those who don't spend every waking minute reading up on the show, who wait a whole year between watching a season and don't constantly rewatch previous seasons. Who are required to keep up with numerous plot threads and intricacies and remember little details about even minor characters. 

I think it must be hard to understand these people, being people who hang out on an ASOIAF forum, but they are the people who watch the show mostly. The show has to be suitable for those people as well as book readers and fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Looks like this thread became another extension of the rant & rave thread..  Quelle surprise.

No, with the exception of the R&R and Positive threads, every thread is a space of debate. So you'll have people arguing about what they like or dislike. C'est comme ça.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Looks like this thread became another extension of the rant & rave thread..  Quelle surprise.

No, this is a thread where we're actually arguing why we think we're right when we rant & rave about the changes other people are identifying as "better" from the show, many of which we disagree with, and some of which we can't even comprehend where you're coming from.  You want to say something praising the show without contest for why it doesn't hold up, go to the positive discussion thread.  

If you're so insecure in your position that you don't think you can back it up beyond strawman's you create because you can't argue against the real argument, I would suggest revising your position or going to your own safe-space style area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the vast majority would have preferred Brienne in action instead of watching a candle for several episodes. (At least Brienne's fans)

Even with time and cost constraints, they could have been done it in another way.

As I said before, sometimes they know how to handle things well, like when they talk to each other. 

It's an adaptation, but they didn't adapt anything from her chapters, except that amazing scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I think the vast majority would have preferred Brienne in action instead of watching a candle for several episodes. (At least Brienne's fans)

Even with time and cost constraints, they could have been done it in another way.

As I said before, sometimes they know how to handle things well, like when they talk to each other. 

It's an adaptation, didn't adapt anything from her chapters, except that amazing scene.

Agreed. Even if we're talking sheer action, her fight "one against seven" would have been so cinematic and amazing. Just reading it gives me chills, it was made for TV/cinema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...