Jump to content

Is There Anything On The Show That You Think Is Better Than The Books?


Cron

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

Again, you don't understand the subtleties of adaptation.

As they say this is pure gold. I don't know if this is more arrogant or absurd. Coming from someone who preaches "useful ways of criticism" (while at the same time can't even explain what he hopes to "accomplish" with his "criticism"), it shouldn't surprise me.

14 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

It's not contradicting in any way. Just because some characters express moral values that subconsciously appeal to a modern audience doesn't mean the audience must find those characters anachronistic. Moral values aren't inherently anachronistic. Some cultures may seem more progressive than others by our standards. In Dorne, women are emancipated, for example. They can inherit and take positions of leadership. We can assume Volantis is the same in the show, judging by Talisa.

It is not about "women rights". As someone who so arrogantly claims to understand subtleties, I expected you to get at least that. It is about modern-day pacifism which Talisa expresses in that scene (and never again!), and also about class structures which, as GRRM said, in those times had teeth.

In rigid class structures, you don't go around and berate other people without declaring who you are and what gives you the right to speak like that to high-born people. In 99 percent cases that would result in you being seriously hurt. Now of course Robb is that 1 percent exception but Talisa simply has no way of knowing that. You can jump around the issue and make up all kind of excuses, but the fact is that class structure is simply suspended in that entire scene because neither of them seems aware even of the class structure.

Someone so full of understanding for subtleties as you are should ask for at least subtle reminders of the class structure, right? But no, in this case you just don't seem to care for subtleties. If D&D wrote the scene where class structure is inexplicably suspended, who needs subtleties, right?

About pacifism, sorry but it looks that you are someone who doesn't understand the mentality of pre-modern times. Nowadays, with free speech and everything, practically everything gets questioned all the time, so it wouldn't be outrageous to challenge someone's idea to defend with arms something he considers valuable and precious. But in earlier times that would be ridiculous.

Of course that peaceful people existed before modern times but they were nothing like modern pacifists who question the very idea of war. To them, every war anywhere is unjustified. As far as I know the first pacifist of that kind was Tolstoy. There were pacifist religions and sects, but that is not the rational pacifism that is the subject here, because Talisa's pacifism comes from rationality and not from religious beliefs. Her kind of pacifism is very modern.

That isn't the case with gender issues, simply because humanity needed thousands of years to develop rational pacifism, but genders were there from the beginning and societies always differed in how they treated genders. That's why Dorne is not anachronistic, and there are examples in history that are similar to Dorne. Because of Nymeria I always thought of Boudica and from what I know in the kingdom Boudica inherited women were known to take the throne.

Now that being said, if something is anachronistic it isn't necessarily bad. Maybe that is the whole point, especially in fantasy, to portray some modern idea against medieval backdrop. But that was not the case here at all.

Talisa's pacifism disappears completely after that scene, which is strong implication that the entire thing was not product of some carefully studied idea by D&D, but by their whim. But even in that scene it is displayed in ridiculous manner, which for some reason you, even though you like to present yourself as someone who understands subtleties, choose to ignore.

"That boy did?" is a rude question that is coming from the position of moral superiority but also intellectual superiority. She's not only talking down on him as if he doesn't know what is moral and what isn't, but she's also talking down on him as if he has to be reminded that that boy didn't kill his father.

"Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?" is even worse, because as I said, and you ignored, it's not only morally and intellectually arrogant, but outright absurd: WHAT'S ROBB TO DO WITH LANNISTER SOLDIERS THAT AREN'T JOFFREY'S FRIENDS???

And her third line makes her stupid, because she obviously doesn't understand secession but arrogantly asks him about his plans "for what comes afterwards".

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Just stop and think what you're saying for a second. You are speaking in the name of all the soldiers and generals in present day and history just to make a flimsy point about hating a movie scene.

If there ever was nitpicking, this has to be it. It is just a figure of speech and very common where I come from, but of course that it doesn't mean literally all soldiers. It means that anyone who'd react differently would be a very rare exception and very atypical. I thought you understood subtleties and that I don't have to explain everything.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

They don't have to mention anything (they don't even need to be called "silent sisters", I just called them that because that's the closest thing that came to mind). It's purely visual storytelling:

Here's the aftermath of a battle. There are several women on the battlefield tended to the wounded and nobody's bothering them, so that must be normal. They have those pennants with the seven pointed star, so it must be a westerosi religious thing. Here's this other character helping one of these women out with a wounded soldier. Done. Established. Self explanatory.

Now, a good film maker would make sure to show these nuns later, at least in the background, since they are now an established part of the lore. If D&D don't that's not a problem with this scene, it's a problem with them keeping continuity.

Visual storytelling? Really? You really sound like show fanboy, sorry to say. She just shares few seconds of screen time with silent sisters! Nothing is established really, except that she and silent sisters are tending the wounded after the battle, but that doesn't qualify as "visual storytelling", because no "story" is told. You can say that nothing has to be established because nurses are fairly common and understandable, but calling it "visual storytelling" is just fanboyism really. If that's "visual storytelling", what isn't? And not to mention that silent sisters in the books exclusively take care of the dead, so those women in the show don't even qualify as silent sisters.

But the main point is that you're barking at the wrong tree. You're just explaining what is she doing at the battlefield, but I wasn't even talking about that. Just because her role at the battlefield is "established" by that "visual storytelling" of yours, it doesn't mean that she can go around and berate kings and lords at will.

But if you want to go your way, okay then, just ask yourself what would happen to a silent sister if she berated some king or lord? Would it be business as usual? LOL! Of course not, and that is my biggest problem with that scene, and not to mention again that Talisa's pacifism disappears after that scene which makes everything even more random and absurd.

Just please don't bother with "explaining" that you didn't mean that she's silent sisters, but that she's something sort of kind of almost like silent sisters. I understood you, but I tried to show you how wrong it is to assume that something was "established" with that "visual storytelling" that lasted few seconds and didn't tell much of anything really.

Unless if by "established" you mean "don't ask too many questions", which seems to be the case sadly. You can say that some questions are redundant and maybe you'll be right sometimes, but don't overkill it with ridiculous "established" and "visual storytelling" attempts at explanations. You are a master of subtleties after all.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Again, not stupid. His war is affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe he is justified in waging it, but that doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the consequences. A less honorable person would not care, but Robb does and it gives him pause because he hadn't thought of that (and before you say it, yes, it's realistic that he hadn't). It's a moment of character growth for him.

If we recall yours and show's logic, Robb is in his 20s, so if he hadn't thought about thousands of lives his war affects then he's neither bright nor caring too much. If that's your picture of Robb then I can see why you're thinking that it's a realistic scene.

But I have to remind you that the show actually established Robb as someone who's very aware of the effects of his war: in the episode 9 of the first season after he smashes Jaime's army he specifically reminds exhilarated Theon that 2.000 men were sent to their graves and that dead won't hear the songs about themselves. Someone like that doesn't have to be reminded that "boys who aren't king Joffrey's friends" are losing legs and lives in his war.

Between scene of capturing Jaime and scene with Talisa, Robb actually regressed as a character, so what "character growth" are you talking about even? Is it another subtlety that I failed to see maybe, for example: "Ah, but that boy was not his soldier, Talisa taught him to care for enemy soldiers as well"? What a character growth, right?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Foreign nobility certainly does not mean "low-born" in Westeros. It's not going to save her from anything perhaps, but let's not be intellectually dishonest. In many cases it would make other nobles forgive her small transgressions. At the very least, the potential ransom money would keep her alive. The Brave Companions abstained themselves from raping Brienne for promise of emeralds from a small island they never heard of before in the books. Surely Volantis, the most powerful city state in Essos, would carry at least as much weight.

Intellectually dishonest? Your arrogance is improving obviously! But you should be more careful with examples, because these aren't speaking to your favor at all.

Brienne is captured in committing a treason and on king Robb's orders so it's not really comparable, but besides I'm not disputing that Talisa's life would be spared by potential ransom, that's just your strawman argument. What I'm doubting is that someone goes around and berates kings and lords without even declaring she's also high-born. Brienne in the books thinks carefully about every word she says in AFFC even when dealing with lords, even though she's much more capable of protecting herself than Talisa. Even in the show where she's rude to anybody Brienne gets in trouble for saying wrong things to wrong people, or is protected by her scary looks (even though she's also written poorly in the show, but that's another subject).

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

- In his later years, Tytos Lannister, Tywin's father, took a candlemaker's daughter as his mistress and she ended up ordering about the entire household while Tytos was alive.

And what happened to Tytos' mistress once she was without protection of Tytos? She was humiliated and brutalized, of course. Who's protecting Talisa again?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

- Tyrion himself married the peasant girl Tysha. Of course, Tywinn made him think she was a whore, but once he finds out the truth, Tyrion shows nothing but regret for losing her. No issues whatsoever with her being a peasant.

What this has to do with anything?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Also, Tyrion is very supportive with Penny, who isn't only insolent, but actually tried to kill him. Yes, Tyrion is a noble in exile, but he had plenty of opportunities to ditch or take revenge on her and he didn't.

Maybe because she feels sorry for her, because she lost her brother when he was mistaken for Tyrion? Who did Talisa lost, the "boy who isn't king Joffrey's friend"? LOL! It's not comparable really. But Tyrion's situation in Essoss doesn't speak in favor of your argument at all, as we already discussed in that other thread.

The rest of your examples are not from ASOIAF so I can't comment on them, but in the entire ASOIAF you can't find even one example of anyone behaving like Talisa and not even thinking about consequences. That tells a lot.

3 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Again, you don't understand the subtleties of adaptation. In the books, you only see Robb through other PoVs, mostly his mother Catelyn. As a reader, you connect with Catelyn and you connect with Robb through her love of him (and all the hopes his PoV brothers and sisters put in him).

But you can't translate this storytelling device to film. There is no way to define PoVs in the show and get viewers on board with that idea. You can't show all the internal monologues and feelings and memories we see in the books. You can only show things that can be visualized.

And what does this mean? First of all, Robb has to be an actual character. You can't have several Robb-centric scenes in season one, like saving Bran, calling the banners, becoming King in the North, etc., then say "Lol, nope! Sorry guys, you only saw Robb because Cat an Bran were nearby. We're not going to show him in season 2, but you'll see some characters talk about him if you pay attention", and then have him come back married at the start of season 3 and expect people to be invested in that.

Second, this character has to garner sympathy from the audience on his own. Even if you wanted to focus on Cat, again, half of her book character is internalized. George lets you see the contrast between what she says and what she thinks and feels, because you are inside her mind. The show can't really do this without getting to some very corny levels (think Dexter Morgan-style narration for each of the 20+ PoV characters to tell us what they think).

So no, you can't do the story "exactly like in the books", because books and film are entirely different mediums, and sometimes that means you have to tell the story in a different way. Which brings us once again to the argument I made in the other thread: if you're going to do Robb and Jeyne in the show, you actually need to film it, and that would be really bloody expensive, because there's a whole new castle, and a battle, and a host of tertiary characters and all that.

What you are saying is this: Robb's romance had to be shown on screen because otherwise viewers wouldn't be invested in it and wouldn't find it believable and wouldn't sympathize with Robb and he wouldn't grow into an "actual character". All of that is wrong and all of that actually shows that you have no understanding of the visual medium, unless if it means repeating some nonsense D&D told as excuse at some point.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Robb's romance absolutely can't be shown on screen. As an idea there is nothing wrong with it. But to say that Robb's arc would certainly fail if his romance isn't shown is completely ridiculous and baseless.

First of all, we're not even talking about the entire romance, but specifically about the inception of it. His and Jeyne's romance can be shown after they're already married and it doesn't have to take anything from the believability of it. Is Ned and Cat's love less believable just because we didn't see how they fell in love? Of course not, that's just nonsense. Jaime and Cersei's love is even better example, because it's much harder to accept as genuine, and yet it's possible even though it's not shown how it started. And Robb's love with Jeyne would be especially easy because in the books he's not POV character so there are no his internal thoughts or whatever. Cat's perspective in the books is helpful but not crucial (you have a very formulaic understanding of the books), but it can be worked around in visual medium, which would help Cat too (she'd have more scenes where she discusses Robb with other characters).

Second, it could be showed through flashbacks. D&D didn't want to use flashbacks at first but eventually they used it on Cersei, so they could have used it on Robb too if they were smart enough early enough. Cersei's flashback wasn't too good (but not too bad either), maybe they'd blew it with Robb's, but competent writers would know how to use flashbacks about Robb's romance to great effect.

But to repeat the most important thing: I'm not even saying that showing Robb's romance on screen is necessarily wrong. There may be reasons for a TV show to go that way. So thanks for your lecture about "subtleties of adaptations", but it wasn't needed really. But it is you who are saying that anything else would be a failure. You are insisting that unless Robb's romance was shown on screen his storyline would loose it's credibility somehow, which actually signals that you are the one who has problems with understanding visual media.

Most usually, some important things can't be seen on screen, and it's on writers and directors to make viewers invested even in those things. For epic like this it is especially true. But D&D were never good with absent or abstract, which really is a huge problem when they're adapting a story that is so dependent on internal concepts and history and mythology. For example that's why Rhaegar is non-entity in the show.

Because they have no skills to make Robb's romance important and believable without staying with Robb all the time, D&D invented that ridiculous excuse that viewers wouldn't be invested otherwise, and it's sad to see how many people believe in that nonsense. But of course when you don't have skills you don't have skills, so eventually they made a poor story out of Robb's romance anyway.

Better writers could make Robb's romance work off screen, or on screen, with Jeyne, or with a foreigner from Volantis. That has nothing to do with the visual medium, but with writing skills, and D&D sadly don't have any because otherwise they wouldn't write lines like: "Do you think that he's friends with king Joffrey?"

3 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

You said yourself that news about Bran and Rickon make Robb irrational. Therefore, you can't blame him for the mistake of sleeping with Jayne. What he did was inevitable due to the pressure of his grief, and the next morning he is faced with a difficult decision. This means that as a reader you can't hold Robb responsible for sleeping with Jeyne (even though he, as a character, takes responsibility).

He is virtually a blameless victim who only tried to do the right thing, and maybe that's how you like to see Robb, but there's certainly something to be said about a character who genuinely makes a mistake on his own terms, and pays for it.

That is a very strange understanding of irrationality, responsibility, guilt, grief, anything really. But without going into such a strange reading of the books, I have to ask you: do you think that show Robb acting rationally?

3 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Gotta say, I love how you're willing to throw everything under the bus, including GRRM, just to be right and keep calling something stupid.

I'm not throwing anybody under the bus, that's just childish way of looking at things. GRRM will be fine if I dislike something he wrote (especially if that is in contradiction with something he said). I know you won't listen, but try to disagree with D&D sometimes, they won't be harmed.

3 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

I'm not even sure it's worth going about this in circles.

Occam's razor is necessary because of people like you. Because just look at this discussion from the perspective of Occam's razor. I have one assumption that actually explains everything about Talisa: D&D never realized that with those lines and manners Talisa is defying structures and norms of a feudal society. It is not a wild assumption, because Talisa's scenes do leave much to be explained in that sense. You disagree with me, okay fine, your right, but what is the assumption you argue? Well, it's not one but many. Let's count them:

1) Talisa is generally protected by the same tradition that protects silent sisters, even if she behaves very different from silent sisters.

2) Class structures don't apply to Talisa's and Robb's conversation, because both realize how exceptional the other is, or are just very lucky to bump into someone who doesn't go by class structures.

3) Before meeting Talisa Robb was not really aware of all the consequences of his war, but when Talisa faces him with those consequences in a mocking and condescending manner, he doesn't mind.

4) Talisa's pacifism isn't anachronistic because Robb doesn't find it strange, although that pacifism is never argued again by any of the characters, not even by Talisa, or, if it is anachronistic, that was the point, so that viewers can identify with her more easily.

Maybe there's more, but these four will do (and it's just about one scene). It's a typical case for Occam's razor, because all four of your assumptions have to be correct if you want to prove that my one assumption is wrong.

That is why we're "going about this in circles", which is often with show lovers, because to that one all-explaining assumption (that D&D are just poor writers) they always reply with ton of assumptions of their own. And then all those assumptions of theirs are usually proven wrong or baseless or at the very least not confirmed, but only after lengthy discussions and too much time, when the initial assumption they're fighting against (that D&D are poor writers) is all but forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

It is not about "women rights". As someone who so arrogantly claims to understand subtleties, I expected you to get at least that. It is about modern-day pacifism which Talisa expresses in that scene (and never again!), and also about class structures which, as GRRM said, in those times had teeth.

As it happens, the concept of peace is very important in Volantene culture. They are led by democratically elected triarchs from two parties, the Tigers, advocating expansionist war, and the Elephants, advocating peace and expansion through trade. The Elephants had majority seats for the last 300 years prior to the events of the series, following a devastating war with the rest of the free cities that almost destroyed Volantis. The virtues of peace probably get drilled into their heads during each one of their yearly elections. So no, I'm not going to be shocked out of my immersion when a Volantene character expresses vaguely pacifist ideas.

In the name of intellectual honesty, however, I'll admit I do not believe D&D were aware of this. It's most likely just an ironic coincidence. But this doesn't matter, because ASOIAF lore was never the issue with you.

The issue with you is that you're setting extremely unreasonable standards and take every minor issue to the superlative. You explained Talisa's supposed rudeness several times, and every time you fail to convince me that it matters. Maybe it's not authentic medieval dialogue, I'll give you that, but it doesn't seem out of place unless you're actively looking for something to pick on. It's certainly not "extremely rude", it's mildly rude at best (it's actually bitter and reproachful more than "rude"). And it doesn't sound like something that wouldn't be said in the books.

Just look how Bronn speaks to Tyrion: "Make no mistake, dwarf. I fought for you, but I do not love you."; "You have a bold tongue, little man. One day someone is like to cut it out and make you eat it."; "You think to outlive me, dwarf?". That's a pretty rude way to treat a lord who is about to take you into his service, don't you think?

5 hours ago, StepStark said:

What you are saying is this: Robb's romance had to be shown on screen because otherwise viewers wouldn't be invested in it and wouldn't find it believable and wouldn't sympathize with Robb and he wouldn't grow into an "actual character". All of that is wrong and all of that actually shows that you have no understanding of the visual medium, unless if it means repeating some nonsense D&D told as excuse at some point.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Robb's romance absolutely can't be shown on screen. As an idea there is nothing wrong with it. But to say that Robb's arc would certainly fail if his romance isn't shown is completely ridiculous and baseless.

What I am saying is that no matter what they show, something that tries to be faithful to what is suggested in the books, or something entirely new, they have to show some actual scenes. The romance is simply cheaper to film, easier to sell to the masses, and therefore a safer choice.

Cat's perspective is crucial in getting the reader to care about Robb. Aside from that, we get a lot of characterization for Robb from the observations she makes. I like how you think it's totally fine to show Robb married out of the blue and rely on flashbacks and third party dialogue to tell the story.

Of course, if the story was only about the Lannisters versus Starks, flashbacks would work. But it's not. The story has several parallel plot lines and a ton of characters. Using flashbacks would be a huge narrative mess. In fact, I expect the coming flashbacks to be among the top 10 worst scenes of season 7. They never failed to be bad. It's no wonder D&D started introducing flashbacks in their worst seasons.

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

Because they have no skills to make Robb's romance important and believable without staying with Robb all the time, D&D invented that ridiculous excuse that viewers wouldn't be invested otherwise, and it's sad to see how many people believe in that nonsense. But of course when you don't have skills you don't have skills, so eventually they made a poor story out of Robb's romance anyway.

It's not an excuse I got from them, it's common sense. In the books, you always identify a character by their name. As long as their name is mentioned, it doesn't matter from what perspective you tell the story; the reader will be able to identify the character immediately and even visualize the events. In film, characters are identified primarily by their looks, and to a lesser degree by their name.

It's more complicated than you think for casual viewers to keep track of character names. You want to make that mandatory by name bombing characters instead of showing them for episodes or seasons at a time? Why? I repeat, when you read the book you are implicitly aware of the PoV narrative style. If you only see Robb when Bran or Cat are around, you don't question that. But on the show there's no way to establish PoVs (well, there is, but it would be retarded, as you'd need to cram multiple PoVs in every episode), so the average viewer would not understand why he suddenly doesn't see Robb any more

The book also manages to hide important pieces of information in chapters that follow a completely different arc. This wouldn't work on the show because scenes are a lot shorter. You'd either have to make the whole scene about that little bit of information, or hide it so well nobady notices on first viewing.

But sure, it's super easy to claim the books should be adapted to the letter. Because who cares about costs, time, convenience and the audience's capacity and willingness to follow your movie.

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

I'm not throwing anybody under the bus, that's just childish way of looking at things. GRRM will be fine if I dislike something he wrote (especially if that is in contradiction with something he said). I know you won't listen, but try to disagree with D&D sometimes, they won't be harmed.

It's not that you can't dislike something GRRM wrote, of course you can. It's just that seeing how it's your respect for his work that drives you to post here and criticize the show, you'd think you'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he writes something you previously said you'd dislike... give him a chance to prove you wrong. But no, even if he does it it's automatically stupid.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but it makes you look like you mostly argue stuff so you don't have to admit your wrong, to the point that nobody, not even the person you were defending to begin with, would make you change your mind.

 

P.S. I disagree with D&D plenty, but there's nothing to say about that until the new season starts. I don't want to necro threads from a couple years ago just to agree with what I read back then. I never contested that they are bad writers, in fact I said the same thing multiple times, but that doesn't mean it's constructive to try and put down every one of their lines, or that the characters they changed the most are necessarily those they portrayed the worst. I mean, if Talisa was too rude for your liking, what do you call this atrocity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

As it happens, the concept of peace is very important in Volantene culture. They are led by democratically elected triarchs from two parties, the Tigers, advocating expansionist war, and the Elephants, advocating peace and expansion through trade. The Elephants had majority seats for the last 300 years prior to the events of the series, following a devastating war with the rest of the free cities that almost destroyed Volantis. The virtues of peace probably get drilled into their heads during each one of their yearly elections. So no, I'm not going to be shocked out of my immersion when a Volantene character expresses vaguely pacifist ideas.

All that sounds a lot like Ancient Rome or Athens, and yet there was no total pacifism there.

14 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

In the name of intellectual honesty, however, I'll admit I do not believe D&D were aware of this. It's most likely just an ironic coincidence. But this doesn't matter, because ASOIAF lore was never the issue with you.

As I said already, not even anachronistic is necessarily bad, as long as the writer is aware of it and doing it on purpose and with some purpose., but that was obviously not the case with D&D.

14 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

The issue with you is that you're setting extremely unreasonable standards and take every minor issue to the superlative. You explained Talisa's supposed rudeness several times, and every time you fail to convince me that it matters. Maybe it's not authentic medieval dialogue, I'll give you that, but it doesn't seem out of place unless you're actively looking for something to pick on. It's certainly not "extremely rude", it's mildly rude at best (it's actually bitter and reproachful more than "rude"). And it doesn't sound like something that wouldn't be said in the books.

It's not only that her lines are too modern, but also that they're bad. Even in our time her arguments are simply ridiculous. Really, what's Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't friends with Joffrey? That argument is silly no matter when, as are the rest of her arguments. Combined with the condescending tone and lack of respect for a king, I think it surely qualifies as extremely rude, and I challenge you to find anything similar in the books.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Just look how Bronn speaks to Tyrion: "Make no mistake, dwarf. I fought for you, but I do not love you."; "You have a bold tongue, little man. One day someone is like to cut it out and make you eat it."; "You think to outlive me, dwarf?". That's a pretty rude way to treat a lord who is about to take you into his service, don't you think?

Talisa supposedly argues from the rational position (even though her arguments are silly even from that perspective), and she's rude from the position of moral and intellectual superiority (neither of which she ever earned or justified). But Bronn is rude from the position of "I can get away with this because you need me", and he's one of the deadliest individuals around on top of it.

A lot of people in the books are rude to other people, but usually because they're in position to get away with it. Sometimes they're rude just for the sake of it, like Tyrion for example, but he always suffers some consequences because of it. All that makes Talisa's rudeness completely unbelievable.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

What I am saying is that no matter what they show, something that tries to be faithful to what is suggested in the books, or something entirely new, they have to show some actual scenes. The romance is simply cheaper to film, easier to sell to the masses, and therefore a safer choice.

I never disputed that, though I have to say that safer choice is not always the better choice. But if they wanted safer choice, fine, they just didn't have to write it so poorly.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Cat's perspective is crucial in getting the reader to care about Robb.

I don't know how we can ever measure it, and I don't know why you insist on this. I don't even know what you think that I'm disputing here. Yes Cat's perspective is very important because Cat is one the most important POV characters. But is her perspective inevitably lost in visual medium? Of course not, that's just nonsense. Of course Cat's perspective was lost a great deal in the show, but that's because D&D don't know how to translate perspective of POV characters to the screen. Better writers do it all the time, writing logical additional dialogue that reflects inner perspective of POV characters. For good writers, close third person narration of the source material is very helpful, because it gives you everything you need to know about that character. For D&D, it's an obstacle they don't know how to overcome.

But if you're saying that readers cared about Robb only because of or mostly because of Cat's motherly perspective, that I don't agree with at all. But it's not really important, because in any case that perspective doesn't have to be gone from the show.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

I like how you think it's totally fine to show Robb married out of the blue and rely on flashbacks and third party dialogue to tell the story.

I like how you think that it can never be done that way. As if nothing like that was ever done on film or TV.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Of course, if the story was only about the Lannisters versus Starks, flashbacks would work. But it's not. The story has several parallel plot lines and a ton of characters. Using flashbacks would be a huge narrative mess. In fact, I expect the coming flashbacks to be among the top 10 worst scenes of season 7. They never failed to be bad. It's no wonder D&D started introducing flashbacks in their worst seasons.

They made a mess even without flashbacks. But just to be clear, it was just a suggestion, but I personally wouldn't tell Robb's story in flashbacks. But flashbacks could've been useful for GOT when it comes to everything that happened before the start of the story. Competent showrunners would use them much earlier and much more effectively.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

It's not an excuse I got from them, it's common sense. In the books, you always identify a character by their name. As long as their name is mentioned, it doesn't matter from what perspective you tell the story; the reader will be able to identify the character immediately and even visualize the events. In film, characters are identified primarily by their looks, and to a lesser degree by their name.

It's more complicated than you think for casual viewers to keep track of character names. You want to make that mandatory by name bombing characters instead of showing them for episodes or seasons at a time? Why? I repeat, when you read the book you are implicitly aware of the PoV narrative style. If you only see Robb when Bran or Cat are around, you don't question that. But on the show there's no way to establish PoVs (well, there is, but it would be retarded, as you'd need to cram multiple PoVs in every episode), so the average viewer would not understand why he suddenly doesn't see Robb any more

It's not common sense, you just accepted their conclusion on face value and now you're working backwards to justify it by finding various excuses. But the problem is that those excuses make no sense. For example, if average viewer doesn't understand "why he suddenly doesn't see Robb any more", then it means that he already memorized Robb and cares for him. What is the problem with that? They hear about Robb from time to time, and they're expecting to see him soon - what's wrong with that? It even creates some tension, because while anticipating Robb's return the very return becomes more and more important.

You're talking about establishing POVs in the show, but I don't know what it means for this discussion, unless you're again trying to put words in my mouth. You keep bringing POVs, not me.

What I'm saying is that there are main characters and there are important characters. Important ones are not necessarily among the main ones. In the books Robb is important but he's not main. It worked in the books and it could work on screen. It works often on screen, even in GOT, because important characters "disappear" for half a season.

Sandor returned after almost two seasons, he's in a totally different condition and in a totally different environment than the last time he was seen. Do viewers have problem to sympathize with him because they didn't see how he came to Brother Ray's group? Of course not.

The point is that it's nothing unheard of if an important character is gone for some time. It was never seen as a problem until D&D started giving their ridiculous statements. So it's either crazy coincidence that you happen to think the same as the only authors ever who think like that, or you bought their excuse (not necessarily from them, but in some discussion about GOT). I tend to think it's the latter.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

But sure, it's super easy to claim the books should be adapted to the letter. Because who cares about costs, time, convenience and the audience's capacity and willingness to follow your movie.

Strawman again. I didn't claim "the books should be adapted to the letter". I just don't agree that D&D were changing things to make adaptation better. To agree with that would really be super easy. But I don't have a problem with that being super easy, I have a problem with that being super naive at best and sometimes even pathetic. Buying their excuses truly is pathetic.

Their excuse that Robb's romance HAD TO BE shown on screen is ridiculous. They didn't say that showing it on screen is a possibility they prefer for some reason, but no, they went into their overdramatization mode right away: viewers love Robb, Madden is a great actor, we had to show his romance on screen. But of course, when you say that something had to be done, you're saying that the alternative was not an option, and that's ridiculous. Anyone who believes that Robb's romance couldn't be made believable and important if the start of it happened off screen, has no clue about visual mediums.

And I have to repeat because you obviously ignore it, all that doesn't mean that showing it on screen is bad idea. Of course not, it could work, but in this case it didn't because Talisa was ridiculous character for all those reasons.

Showing some of Robb's campaign on screen would be the reason for good writer to add some scenes for Robb. Viewers can catch on with the romance once Robb's back in Riverrun, because the romance didn't go away, it's still there, still happening between Robb and Jeyne. But campaign is finished, so if you want to show some of it, and in the visual medium it makes much sense to show it (in the book it's almost the same if you're told about it from the narration or from some character, but on screen it's good to show it), then you have to show it while it happens. And I think that with Robb's campaign they found a good way to show a battle without actually putting it on screen. The dialogue between two Lannister soldiers was usually juvenile, but Grey Wind's attack and the shot of Robb marching into battle and then cut to the immediate aftermath of the battle, that was pretty effective, even though we actually didn't see anything from the battle itself.

Give the viewers some credit: they can understand the battle even if it's not actually seen on screen, and they can understand the romance even if the beginning of it didn't happen on screen.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

It's not that you can't dislike something GRRM wrote, of course you can. It's just that seeing how it's your respect for his work that drives you to post here and criticize the show, you'd think you'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he writes something you previously said you'd dislike... give him a chance to prove you wrong. But no, even if he does it it's automatically stupid.

Not really. If GRRM himself said something very specific and then did exactly the opposite, I see no reason to pretend it's okay. It's not a big deal luckily, I'm not making a big deal out of it, you are.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but it makes you look like you mostly argue stuff so you don't have to admit your wrong, to the point that nobody, not even the person you were defending to begin with, would make you change your mind.

In this discussion it is you who continue arguing just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Don't project that on me. You're the one who ignores logical points and logical questions I made, and just keeps on piling absurd excuses for D&D.

And I'm not defending GRRM, because I don't see who's attacking him here. But you are defending D&D. Do it if you like, just don't project your needs on me please.

15 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

P.S. I disagree with D&D plenty, but there's nothing to say about that until the new season starts. I don't want to necro threads from a couple years ago just to agree with what I read back then. I never contested that they are bad writers, in fact I said the same thing multiple times, but that doesn't mean it's constructive to try and put down every one of their lines, or that the characters they changed the most are necessarily those they portrayed the worst. I mean, if Talisa was too rude for your liking, what do you call this atrocity?

I don't think it's constructive to give them free pass for something as poorly written as Talisa. But I never said that Talisa is their only atrocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Coconut God

And also, why don't you address some of the points I made? You like to speak from your high horse and accuse me of refusing to change my mind, but I didn't hear anything from you about Talisa's lines lately. You were insisting that the dialogue in that scene was 7-8, but what do you say now? Do you still think that her lines make sense? What is Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't friends with Joffrey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

As I said already, not even anachronistic is necessarily bad, as long as the writer is aware of it and doing it on purpose and with some purpose., but that was obviously not the case with D&D.

Like I said back in the other thread, it's not impossible that they were aware. At that time HBO was weary of period shows because both Rome and Deadwood had to be cancelled and Boardwalk Empire wasn't doing too well either. Period shows are expensive to make and have limited appeal because average audience members lose interest in characters they can't identify with.

Back then you refused my comparison and said GoT should be compared with the Sopranos, but that is nonsensical. The Sopranos are modern characters, has a much smaller cast (especially the core cast), and was cheaper to make at the start, 2 million per episode compared to Rome which was 9 million and GoT which was 6.

Somewhat reducing historical accuracy in order to increase audience appeal (basically making sure the show covers production costs) seems like a reasonable trade-off. The risk is that if it goes too far it ruins the quality of the show, but in my opinion the slight anachronisms you notice with Robb and Talisa are nowhere near that level.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Talisa supposedly argues from the rational position (even though her arguments are silly even from that perspective), and she's rude from the position of moral and intellectual superiority (neither of which she ever earned or justified).

You assume she argues from a position of rationality, but neither character is fully rational in that scene. She is reproachful because she sees no point in all the violence, but Robb's arguments give her pause and she starts to respect him. In exchange, she helps Robb humanize the Lannister soldiers and gets him to think about his responsibility for the rest of the realm if he beats Joffrey. It is a decent character interaction (and no, I don't think it's realistic to expect Robb to have already known the things she pointed out).

As for her "condescending tone and lack of respect for a king", you have to keep in mind he's not the king of the realm. The Battle of Oxcross, where Robb meets Talisa, takes place in the Westerlands, tree days ride from Casterly Rock and Lannisport. He's not her lawful liege, he's an invading commander and self-proclaimed king of another land, so she has no reason to show respect other than a sense of self-preservation. Maybe she's being foolish, maybe she's too upset to care, maybe she read him well enough to realize he poses no threat to her. Either way, it's not unrealistic for people in medieval times and in George's story to be defiant and "rude" to invaders. Often there is a price to pay, and sometimes there isn't. Obviously Robb wasn't the man to harm her, so she got away with it. Where is the problem again?

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

For good writers, close third person narration of the source material is very helpful, because it gives you everything you need to know about that character. For D&D, it's an obstacle they don't know how to overcome.

Narration is a great tool when it fits the story, but if you're using it to avoid filming a difficult scene, or because you're adapting a book and the book did it, it's going to come off as lazy and boring.

Narration in Dexter shows you a glimpse into the character's mind. Dexter Morgan constantly hides who he really is from the other characters; the voice over lets the viewer know who he really is and how he really thinks, allowing them to understand his actions. It's also a great source of humor in that show.

Narration in shows like Pushing Daisies, Lemony Snicket, or films by Wes Anderson is a framing device and is often accompanied by quirky and creative cinematography. The narrator plays with the viewers and hints at future events, or seemingly tries to keep them hooked; he is integrated in the style of the film.

Epic narration like in LotR is only used at the start of the trilogy to set the tone and frame the history of the world viewers are about to embark in. And so forth.

But overall the rule in any visual medium is "show, don't tell". And in GoT it would be nigh impossible to use narration consistently and creatively. Do you use internal monologue for every PoV character? Do you narrate important events you can't show because they aren't shown in the books (or cost too much to film)?

Do you just create dialogue to replace the inner thoughts? Sometimes that may work, but other times it would be unrealistic. Ned would never talk to anyone about what happened at the ToJ. Catelyn is internalizing a lot of pain and worries because she is trying to support and encourage Robb. If she talks about this to him, it defeats the purpose (and she runs the risk of looking like a nagging mom to viewers, especially since show Robb is older). If she talks about this with someone else it can easily come off as a rand rather than an emotional scene, and the other character would be just a wall for her to ping pong exposition against.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

But flashbacks could've been useful for GOT when it comes to everything that happened before the start of the story. Competent showrunners would use them much earlier and much more effectively.

The problem with flashbacks is that they're fragmenting an already fragmented story even more. And they run the risk of confusing the audience... people won't automatically recognize flashback characters (in the books they do because they're identified by their names no matter what sort of scene it is). How do the viewers recognize the character if it's either a. - someone dead that was only mentioned a few times by name on the show, or b. - a younger version of a character, played by a different actor? ... Boy, that scene at the ToJ where Bran kept explaining who everyone was to the audience was really, REALLY stupid...

Another issue with flashbacks is that the books manage to keep crucial details hidden when they talk to us about past events. On film, it's a lot harder to hide that sort of stuff (the books, for example, can place Lyanna "in a bed of blood" without the reader knowing if it's blood from childbirth or wounds, but on film they can't really show you the "bed of blood" without also divulging where it's coming from).

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Sandor returned after almost two seasons, he's in a totally different condition and in a totally different environment than the last time he was seen. Do viewers have problem to sympathize with him because they didn't see how he came to Brother Ray's group? Of course not.

Sandor is a popular minor character, and his return came much later in the story, after he was already developed for several characters. Last time we saw him he was also left for dead, it's not like the show said "this character is still doing important stuff that drives the story for several other characters, we just decided you don't need to see it").

Lastly, the Sandor episode is a prime example of atrocious writing. He spends a single episode changing his way of life and growing attached to those people only to lose them at the end and go back to his own ways. All those villagers and a whole 8 minutes on Ian McShane were nothing but tools for some rushed, circular character development for the Hound. You can't get more hammy than that.

Jeyne would have felt a lot more like a plot device if she showed up in the same season as the Red Wedding with no prior development of her character or her relationship with Robb.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

What I'm saying is that there are main characters and there are important characters. Important ones are not necessarily among the main ones. In the books Robb is important but he's not main. It worked in the books and it could work on screen. It works often on screen, even in GOT, because important characters "disappear" for half a season.

In the books, "main characters" are PoV characters, and this is established from the beginning of the series, so readers aren't going to judge it. In the show, you can't have scenes like thisthis and this and claim Robb is not a "main character". He's never the PoV for any of these scenes in the books, but he's the one who experiences character growth in them, so he will be perceived as the protagonist on the show.

Sure, you can stop showing him anymore, but viewers will not understand why their protagonist suddenly vanishes and will perceive it as a flaw in the story. Like many ensemble shows, like the Walking Dead, for example, if you move the focus away from a favorite character you lose viewers. This is not some excuse I'm borrowing from D&D, this is how things work in TV. If they thought of this too, good for them. Just because they're bad writers doesn't mean they are utterly incompetent with every decision they make.

Furthermore, in the books the one advantage of not showing Robb is prolonging the mystery of his military movements and hiding hints of what's going on in other character's chapters (Arya, Cat, Sansa, Tyrion, I think even Jon). On the show, scenes have to be condensed for time and flow, so any secret hidden in them would have to either be telegraphed or virtually invisible. So rather than telegraphing three scenes about Robb's military movements that might nonetheless not even register with some viewers, it's better to just give Robb a scene. The theory that they made Robb into a main character just to show off Madden's skills is absolutely balls to the walls ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Not really. If GRRM himself said something very specific and then did exactly the opposite, I see no reason to pretend it's okay. It's not a big deal luckily, I'm not making a big deal out of it, you are.

I think people like to believe GRRM was ripping Robb&Talisa with those quotes, when in fact they're probably unrelated. Here's a link to the full interview. He was talking about noble women marrying stable boys when he said people in the bast didn't marry below their status. Not something that would apply to Robb.

And here's the conclusion: "I mean, the class structures in places like this had teeth. They had consequences. And people were brought up from their childhood to know their place and to know that duties of their class and the privileges of their class. It was always a source of friction when someone got outside of that thing. And I tried to reflect that". He talks about the drama that appears when people try to challenge social structures, not that they never do it.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

And also, why don't you address some of the points I made? You like to speak from your high horse and accuse me of refusing to change my mind, but I didn't hear anything from you about Talisa's lines lately. You were insisting that the dialogue in that scene was 7-8, but what do you say now? Do you still think that her lines make sense? What is Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't friends with Joffrey?

Because there's nothing to say about Talisa's line, other than you are insisting that your own subjective interpretation is the only correct one. I tried to give you alternative interpretations and tell you why I think it's fine, what else can I do?

You'll have to take my word for it because I couldn't find the interview, but I remember Gilligan or Gould saying in BCS interview that you poke holes in any story if you look close enough. Your ability to poke holes doesn't necessarily make it bad. You're free to interpret the scene any way you wish; we've both made our case and other readers will decides for themselves which of us they agree with.

As for my grading, I reserve 10 for absolutely fantastic shows (such as Breaking Bad), 9 for slightly flawed shows that are still very good (such as Fargo), 7-8 for shows that may be a bit bland or uninspired, or fluctuate in quality, but are still decent enough to win a healthy audience, 5-6 for flimsy shows and formulaic dreck, like procedurals and some of the better reality shows, and 0-4 for the unspeakable crap, things I can't believe were actually produced, bombs that actually make people dumber, things like some of the Shyamalan movies, Uwe Boll, Troll 2, Adam Sandler comedies, etc. So yeah, 7-8 for Talisa sounds just about fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

At that time HBO was weary of period shows because both Rome and Deadwood had to be cancelled and Boardwalk Empire wasn't doing too well either.

This is very untrue because Rome didn't have to be canceled as even HBO admitted afterwards (they openly called it a mistake), and Boardwalk Empire was doing reasonably well, even better than GOT at the beginning (GOT later dwarfed it of course).

11 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Back then you refused my comparison and said GoT should be compared with the Sopranos, but that is nonsensical.

This is also untrue because I never refused any comparison. But here you're again refusing the comparison with The Sopranos by making another Strawman. I was specifically talking about writing, not about cast or episode cost but writing. But you only want to talk about cast and episode costs, don't you? When I press you on writing and on specific Talisa lines, you're suddenly all about "everyone has the right to an opinion". Well thanks, everyone really has the right to an opinion, but not all opinions are valid.

If you don't want to admit that there's anything wrong with the line "Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?", then you hardly have any criteria, sorry to say. Then it's all about what you personally happen to like or dislike for whatever reason. You happen to like Robb and Talisa and you're going to defend it to death and find weak excuses.

And there is no end with weak excuses. When I say that Talisa is behaving against all social norms of the setting, you say that she's upset by horrors of war, which is wrong of course because social norms don't cease to apply because someone's upset, and when I remind you about that, you then say that there are rude characters in the books too. And when I explained you the difference between those situations and Talisa situations, with the biggest difference being that in all those scenes in the books social norms are never forgotten, and if they're suspended there is a good reason for it, you just changed subject.

Here's another example, with Sandor. I mention him in a way that is precisely about what we were discussing about Robb, and that is characters having important things happened to them off screen. But instead of addressing that, you go on about how Sandor's episode was poorly written, which I agree with completely, but it wasn't what I was talking about!

You even failed to understand what narration I was talking about in my last post. I was talking about book narration, and you replied with something about film narration. And you also confused GRRM's quotes, because that wasn't the one I was talking about.

You even ignored Occam's razor, which you don't have to take as if it's a Bible, but at least you could address my point that on my one assumption you answered with your multiple assumptions.

You're confusing and obscuring and ignoring issues all the time. For example, you keep saying that Robb can't "disappear" from the story without explanation. But who said that he has to disappear? I specifically described why he doesn't have to disappear even if his romance starts off screen. But you just ignored it and went on on why Sandor's departure and return to the story was not as Rob's would've been, even though it wasn't what I was talking about in either case.

Here is the essence of our argument:

1) I'm saying that Robb's romance in the show was done very poorly.

2) you're saying that the start of Robb's romance must be shown on screen.

That's it, those two points are what this really is about. It's not about Robb "disappearing", because Robb can have significant screen time in season 2 and still start his romance off screen.

I explained number of reasons why I find Talisa and everything around her to be poorly written. You ignored most of my explanations and moved goalpost all the time, for example at first you didn't want to admit that her pacifism is anachronistic but now you admit that it is "little anachronistic" but that you don't see any problem with that (even though her pacifism totally disappears after that scene but you also ignore that). You can repeat that you like it and that you think it's 7-8 as much as you want, but ignoring legitimate complaints and moving goalposts isn't helping your case at all.

But also, you never explained why Robb's romance has to started on screen. You keep talking about why Robb can't disappear, but that's not the issue here, nobody's saying that he has to disappear. The issue is would his romance be believable if it started off screen.

I think it's totally nonsensical to say that it wouldn't be, when many other romances in the show started off screen but they are all believable. The history of film and TV is full of similar examples. Honestly, it's ridiculous to think that visual medium doesn't allow something like that.

There is no point in continuing this argument, because if after all this time you didn't logically disprove any of my objections and you didn't support your main point in any logical way, you either can't or don't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

This is very untrue because Rome didn't have to be canceled as even HBO admitted afterwards (they openly called it a mistake), and Boardwalk Empire was doing reasonably well, even better than GOT at the beginning (GOT later dwarfed it of course).

I'm not sure if and when HBO said that, but the fact remains that expensive costumes and sets and characters with unrelatable moral values make a very risky combination. It's not unreasonable to think executives would want to reduce those risks.

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Here is the essence of our argument:

1) I'm saying that Robb's romance in the show was done very poorly.

2) you're saying that the start of Robb's romance must be shown on screen.

That's it, those two points are what this really is about. It's not about Robb "disappearing", because Robb can have significant screen time in season 2 and still start his romance off screen.

I believe it is important to show the events that make Robb break his promise to Walder Frey. It's a crucial moment for his character, and the show has no discernible reason not to show it other than "we don't see it directly in the books". It's not about the romance at all, but it's kind of inevitable that Robb has to marry someone else for that to happen.

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

I was specifically talking about writing, not about cast or episode cost but writing. But you only want to talk about cast and episode costs, don't you?

I hope you realize they're all related... Large cast means there's less time for each character, there's only so much you can do with their scenes while also trying to advance the plot. Truly good scenes require build-up; it's easy enough to pick one scene and explain how to make it better, but if you do this for every character you end up doubling the length of each episode (no, I don't think giving up their original scenes would be enough). And high costs means that some scenes will be changed or cut if they require a whole new location or characters that aren't really needed anywhere else.

But let's get on to your next quote and talk about writing (specifically dialogue):

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

If you don't want to admit that there's anything wrong with the line "Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?", then you hardly have any criteria, sorry to say. Then it's all about what you personally happen to like or dislike for whatever reason. You happen to like Robb and Talisa and you're going to defend it to death and find weak excuses.

And there is no end with weak excuses. When I say that Talisa is behaving against all social norms of the setting, you say that she's upset by horrors of war, which is wrong of course because social norms don't cease to apply because someone's upset, and when I remind you about that, you then say that there are rude characters in the books too. And when I explained you the difference between those situations and Talisa situations, with the biggest difference being that in all those scenes in the books social norms are never forgotten, and if they're suspended there is a good reason for it, you just changed subject.

Let's analyze the scene again. The first time they see each other, Talisa is about to saw off a soldier's infected leg. Robb kneels down to help her. At Roose Bolton's remark that she should be taking care of Robb's men, she answers defiantly with the line "Your men are not my men".

Is this unrealistic? I say it is not. Talisa is in the Westerlands, where Robb and his men are invaders. In the book, Oxcross is a training camp for new recruits that Robb eliminates so they ton't take his forces in the rear later during the campaign. He is not going to spend much time there either, as he'll soon need to return to the Riverlands to defend them from Tywin. There is no reason for anyone there to consider Robb their rightful king or to show him respect. Sure, they are taking a risk (and some characters pay for it with their lives), but it's not unusual in that world for people to be defiant or "rude" to invaders or captors.

Here are a few examples from the book: "Maybe my brother will give me your head." - Sansa to Joff.  "Aye, we know you for a sack of steaming dung!" - Mikken to Theon after he takes Winterfell (he insults them three times before being killed); "My father's going to kill you." - one of Ronnet's bastards to Jon Connington after he took Griffin's Roost; "Command them to fight for you, and they would look at one another and say 'Who is this man? He is no king of mine'." - Jon to Stannis, implying that the clansmen wouldn't automatically respect and obey Stannis just because he's a king marching an army through their lands.

The following conversation starts like this:

Robb: What is your name?

Talisa: Talisa.

Robb: Your last name? - this implies he thinks she is a noble, since only nobles and noble bastards have last names in Westeros (it is a safe assumptions, since a peasant wouldn't have had the means and opportunity to learn and practice medicine).

Talisa: You want to know what side my family fights on? - here, Talisa is confirming his suspicions that she is indeed from a noble family, even though she isn't telling him which.

From his point forward, as far as Robb and Talisa's characters are concerned, this is a conversation between two nobles. If you want to paint it any other way to make your argument look stronger, you are misinterpreting the scene.

And before you claim not even a noble woman would be "rude" to a king, this is what Catelyn has to say to not one, but two self-proclaimed kings that she is actively trying to win as allies: "Listen to yourselves! If you were sons of mine, I would bang your heads together and lock you in a bedchamber until you remembered that you were brothers". Is this how you talk to a king? Like you're about to pull his ear and give him a spanking? Or are social norms different in this situation and this doesn't count as rude?

Now let's look at the rest of Robb&Talisa's dialogue. You assume Talisa is giving him a rational sermon inspired by the principles of modern pacifism, but a more realistic interpretation is that her lines are emotional and come as a reaction to the horrors she just witnessed. Robb gallantly insists that she should give him her name, to which she replies:

Talisa: That boy lost his foot on your orders. - instead of an answer, she gives the reason why she is sullen and reproachful towards him.

Robb: They killed my father.

Talisa: That boy did?

Robb: The family he fights for.

Talisa: Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey? He's a fisherman's son that grew up near Lannisport. He probably never held a spear before they shoved one in his hands a few months ago.

Read the whole conversation and try to put the lines you find so problematic into context. Talisa is upset about the boy whose leg she had to cut off, that had an impact on her. As a healer in the vicinity of Lannisport, she probably tended to him or others like him in times of peace. Her character doesn't have any reason to sympathize with Rob's cause at this point. She is sullen about what happened to that boy (or the Lannister soldiers in general, personified by that boy), and that's why the conversation starts with him and circles back to him every time Robb gives her the opportunity.

She isn't giving him a pacifist sermon, nor is she entirely rational; she is venting her frustration, as it is only human to do, sometimes in inappropriate situations. But sure enough, Robb is a good and honorable character, and he sees some wisdom in what she has to say, and in in turn she warms up to him as their dialogue continues.

But the themes presented here aren't D&D's invention. They appears in the books as well. Here are few of Septon Meribald's lines from one of Brienne's AFFC chapters:

- "Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war."

- "They don't know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they're fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground. And the knights come down on them, faceless men clad all in steel, and the iron thunder of their charge seems to fill the world..."

Sure, the show's dialogue is blunter and the context is different (as well as talking about wounded men rather than men turned brigand because of the horrors of war), but the themes, message and even the imagery are almost exactly the same. The dialogue is not stellar (it's not horrible either), but this is very much an adaptation of ideas from the books, and it doesn't deviate too much from how social norms are presented in similar situations in the books, so it is eminently fine.

That's all the dissecting I am willing to do, and I think it suffices.

P.S. Yes, I didn't reply to every argument you posted, but that doesn't mean I don't read or consider everything. But I have to limit what I say or we'd both spend the whole day posting replies. If I think I already covered something, or it goes without saying given the rest of my response, I'm not going to elaborate. Other times I see what you mean and why you would think something, but I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation or the magnitude of importance you are giving it, and there's not much to say about that other than you're being subjective.

In any case, if you're still not even slightly convinced by this post, we can just take a bow and call an end to it anyway. It's been fun (for me), but we've beaten this subject half to death. If we push it any further it's going to break, turn brigand and attack honest topics on the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

a safe assumptions, since a peasant wouldn't have had the means and opportunity to learn and practice medicine

+

As a healer in the vicinity of Lannisport, she probably tended to him or others like him in times of peace.

So Talisa is a noble who learned and practiced medicine (LOL!) and before the war she spent her time tending wounded people? Oh yes, it's very convincing! Noble girls must be doing that all the time. That's why so many girls in medieval themed stories go around practicing medicine by tending wounded in their neighborhoods. LOL!

Oh and it totally explains why Jeyne scenes would HAVE TO be more costly. The show doesn't have to explain who is this medic worker (LOL!) and what is she doing on a medieval battlefield, but if they stayed with Jeyne they'd HAVE TO cast her entire family, because the concept of family is much harder to explain than the concept of anonymous and nonaligned medic worker.

Years ago a poster here wrote that filming Jeyne as she tends Robb wold be much less complicated and much cheaper than filming Talisa as she tends random soldiers on a battlefield. I thought he was right, but when you as an expert on budgets say otherwise then he had to be wrong.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

and he sees some wisdom in what she has to say

This is what Robb "learned" from Talisa:

1) If Robb didn't order the attack, that boy wouldn't be attacked.

2) That boy didn't kill Ned.

3) That boy is not Joff's personal friend.

You're right, that surely is wisdom, she's obviously a blessing for him. Without Talisa, Robb would literally know nothing. Character growth, right?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

But the themes presented here aren't D&D's invention. They appears in the books as well.

With just a minor difference that in the books they are treated with logic and depth.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

And high costs means that some scenes will be changed or cut if they require a whole new location or characters that aren't really needed anywhere else.

Which is why they actually ADDED Talisa and her scenes. What was it again: to increase the impact of Red Wedding? Smart investment, obviously.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Read the whole conversation and try to put the lines you find so problematic into context.

How about this context: you couldn't find at least one similar example in all of the five books. In all those examples you picked, there is clear social tension either leading to the insult or coming from the insult or both. About Cat, she's at a parlay, which means no violence, and Stannis still reacts to her tone, but the biggest difference is that THEY ALL KNOW WHO CAT IS!

On top of that, in the books Tyrion in Essoss is example of what happens to noble people when they're far away from home and unable to physically defend themselves: he's totally at the mercy of local noble people, and they of course KNOW who he is.

Class structure is never forgotten in the books and in those rare scenes when it was suspended GRRM gave logical reasons for that suspension. Talisa scenes are nothing like that, class structure just doesn't exist there without any logical reason or explanation. And there is no budgetary explanation behind, it's just poor writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@StepStark I take it you're not convinced. Fair enough. Needless to say, I don't think the counter-arguments you came up with even come close to countering what I said, but if we go any further this will turn into a competition of which one of us can be more stubborn. I'm confident enough with what has been said so far to let other forum readers decide for themselves which one of us is right.

In any case, I thank you for having this conversation with me. Whether I agree with you or not, your replies were appreciated, and I look forward to discussing other subjects with you if you are ever inclined.

Oh, and this obstinate debate of ours reminded me of a funny old epigram... I'll try to translate it as best as I can:

 

The two of us, with bitter smiles

Could kill each other with our eyes

Because you think that I'm unwise

And I, of you, believe likewise

 

I hope you won't take it the wrong way, it's certainly not meant like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, StepStark said:

nm

I've read a lot of your posts (all of them which were addressed to me, and quite a few addressed to others), and there's something I'm curious about, and would like to explore further.

Now, my understanding is that you are saying there is NOTHING in the show that you like better than the books.

Is that correct, or did I somehow get confused?  (This is a sincere question.)

The reason I'm curious about this is cuz (a) if I got confused, then I'm curious about what you DO like better in the show, but (b) if I'm NOT confused, I'd like to explore it further.

This topic thread, which I started, has over 1,000 posts (not that that's a big deal, I'm just saying there's been some decent traffic here), and IF you are saying there is NOTHING you like better in the show than the books, than I think you are the first person I've heard say that (but maybe I've missed something.  I'd say I've read a large majority of the posts in this topic thread, but definitely not all.  I'd estimate I've probably read somewhere between 70% and 90%)

I mean, if you literally like NOTHING in the show better than the books, that's pretty amazing. For just one example, I think LOTS of people prefer the aging up of the characters in the show over their ages in the books (it's a very common thing in the 1,000+ comments above, I believe).  My goodness, my memory is that even GRRM HIMSELF says he prefers the show-ages of the characters, and if he had it to do over, he would have made them older in the books, too.

So, I'm just wondering...IS there ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cron said:

I've read a lot of your posts (all of them which were addressed to me, and quite a few addressed to others), and there's something I'm curious about, and would like to explore further.

Now, my understanding is that you are saying there is NOTHING in the show that you like better than the books.

Is that correct, or did I somehow get confused?  (This is a sincere question.)

The reason I'm curious about this is cuz (a) if I got confused, then I'm curious about what you DO like better in the show, but (b) if I'm NOT confused, I'd like to explore it further.

This topic thread, which I started, has over 1,000 posts (not that that's a big deal, I'm just saying there's been some decent traffic here), and IF you are saying there is NOTHING you like better in the show than the books, than I think you are the first person I've heard say that (but maybe I've missed something.  I'd say I've read a large majority of the posts in this topic thread, but definitely not all.  I'd estimate I've probably read somewhere between 70% and 90%)

I mean, if you literally like NOTHING in the show better than the books, that's pretty amazing. For just one example, I think LOTS of people prefer the aging up of the characters in the show over their ages in the books (it's a very common thing in the 1,000+ comments above, I believe).  My goodness, my memory is that even GRRM HIMSELF says he prefers the show-ages of the characters, and if he had it to do over, he would have made them older in the books, too.

So, I'm just wondering...IS there ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books?

Short version would be: no, there isn't anything that I like more in the show than in the books. But that doesn't mean that I hate every change in the show. Some of those changes I understand, like the one you mentioned, aging up the kids. I have no problem with that. But I still like the book version more, because it is a story based on medieval history and in the past humans were becoming adults and responsible much sooner than we do today. Rickon was the only kid I had problems with in the books, he is acting more like a 5 year old than a 3 year old (everyone with kids can approve that probably), but in the show they made even worse job with Rickon even before the last season, and last season especially.

In this debate I already said that I really liked how they did Robb's battle in season 2, it was much better than how they handled Tyron's battle in season 1. But I can't really say that Robb's battle was "improvement" compared to the book, because the book also gives us few precious details about the battle and lets us imagine the rest. And also, everything they did with Robb's storyline after that battle was one disaster after another, which I already explained in this thread.

Drogo's big speech is interesting because I really love both versions. It's powerfully written so it can fly both ways, as a threatening whisper (in the books) or as a war cry (in the show), so it'd probably be as powerful if it was filmed as in the books, but the show version works perfectly, largely because of Momoa's performance (it was poorly directed scene, so Momoa's performance and the silent support from Emilia and Ian are really the only saving grace but it definitely made that entire scene).

There are more changes that I don't dislike, but not many of them. But believe me, I'm far from the only one who thinks like that. There were quite a few posters here that disliked the show as much as I do or even more, but many of them stopped posting here years ago. Actually that's why I started posting after years of just lurking, because I saw that the balance is disturbed. And one more thing, lot of the points I make is the stuff I've read in their posts, way earlier than it became somewhat acceptable to criticize GOT. And nobody among them criticized the show because they just hated the changes, but they were constantly accused of some irrational purism, even though everything that happened later in the show proved their complaints were very valid.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the quality of discussion in this forum dropped significantly in the last 2-3 years, and that's probably why now I'm the first person you heard with this opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StepStark said:

Short version would be: no, there isn't anything that I like more in the show than in the books. But that doesn't mean that I hate every change in the show. Some of those changes I understand, like the one you mentioned, aging up the kids. I have no problem with that. But I still like the book version more, because it is a story based on medieval history and in the past humans were becoming adults and responsible much sooner than we do today. Rickon was the only kid I had problems with in the books, he is acting more like a 5 year old than a 3 year old (everyone with kids can approve that probably), but in the show they made even worse job with Rickon even before the last season, and last season especially.

In this debate I already said that I really liked how they did Robb's battle in season 2, it was much better than how they handled Tyron's battle in season 1. But I can't really say that Robb's battle was "improvement" compared to the book, because the book also gives us few precious details about the battle and lets us imagine the rest. And also, everything they did with Robb's storyline after that battle was one disaster after another, which I already explained in this thread.

Drogo's big speech is interesting because I really love both versions. It's powerfully written so it can fly both ways, as a threatening whisper (in the books) or as a war cry (in the show), so it'd probably be as powerful if it was filmed as in the books, but the show version works perfectly, largely because of Momoa's performance (it was poorly directed scene, so Momoa's performance and the silent support from Emilia and Ian are really the only saving grace but it definitely made that entire scene).

There are more changes that I don't dislike, but not many of them. But believe me, I'm far from the only one who thinks like that. There were quite a few posters here that disliked the show as much as I do or even more, but many of them stopped posting here years ago. Actually that's why I started posting after years of just lurking, because I saw that the balance is disturbed. And one more thing, lot of the points I make is the stuff I've read in their posts, way earlier than it became somewhat acceptable to criticize GOT. And nobody among them criticized the show because they just hated the changes, but they were constantly accused of some irrational purism, even though everything that happened later in the show proved their complaints were very valid.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the quality of discussion in this forum dropped significantly in the last 2-3 years, and that's probably why now I'm the first person you heard with this opinion.

So, if I understand you correctly, ALL changes made from the books to the show are, in your opinion, either (a) worse than the books, or (b) at most, acceptable, but NEVER better than the books?

So, for example, with the aging up, you find that acceptable, but NOT better than the books? If I have that right, here's my next question: Is it possible for you to say which version you prefer regarding the ages of the kids?  Do you prefer the book ages, or the show ages?

Also, what are your thoughts about the addition of some scenes in the show, which I think are extremely popular with fans?  For example, the scene in Season 1 with Robert and Cersei talking about their marriage, which I think a LOT of fans believe was a change from the books which added a lot to the characters, but did not CONTRADICT the books?  (Personally, these types of scenes are among my favorite show-changes.  If i had made the show it would have followed the books MUCH more closely, but changes would involve more scenes like this, that supplement the books without contradiction them)

Or, how about the scene with Robert, Barristan and Jaime talking about their first kills?  Again, an addition to the book material, and thus a change from the book material, which did not CONTRADICT the book material.  I liked that scene a lot, and was glad they added it.

Or how about the short scene of Robert's hunt?  Once again, no CONTRADICTION of the books  but an addition to the book material, which I liked and thought supplemented the books well (I enjoyed it in part cuz, after hearing about it in the books, now we were actually seeing Robet and Renly out on the hunt, and seeing them interact which gave us more information on their relationship) 

Or, how about the fight scene between Brienne and Sandor?   VERY popular with fans.  I thought that scene was fantastic, and much better than the corresponding material in the books (which was far less dramatic and exciting).  What are your thoughts on that fight scene?

Or how about the big fight at Craster's Keep (with Jon and the NW), or the battle at Hardhome?

Or how about the possibility of any material from the book you DIDN'T like, which they left out?  Or IS there anything from the books you don't like?  I am curious about this.  What would you say is your least favorite stuff about the books?  By any chance, was it something they left out of the show?

I am curious about these things because, yes, I cannot recall encountering someone who is quite well versed in both books and show, yet believes the books are better (or at least no worse) than the show in EVERY conceivable way.  I believe you are truthfully stating your opinion (of course), but the sheer volume of material we are talking about here (books and show combined) is SO MASSIVE that I find it amazing that there is not a single change in the show that you like better than the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cron said:

So, if I understand you correctly, ALL changes made from the books to the show are, in your opinion, either (a) worse than the books, or (b) at most, acceptable, but NEVER better than the books?

You understood correctly but just to be clear I'm talking about the final product as it is, because in the hands of good writers changes would also be significantly better. But on the other hand good writers would keep changes to minimum because of that golden rule: if it works, don't fix it.

5 hours ago, Cron said:

So, for example, with the aging up, you find that acceptable, but NOT better than the books? If I have that right, here's my next question: Is it possible for you to say which version you prefer regarding the ages of the kids?  Do you prefer the book ages, or the show ages?

I already said which I prefer in my previous post. In short: I prefer the books version, because it's more appropriate for pre-modern times, except Rickon who is written unrealistically for his age in the books, but he's also written poorly in the show so there you have it.

5 hours ago, Cron said:

Also, what are your thoughts about the addition of some scenes in the show, which I think are extremely popular with fans?

It's necessary to add some scenes, you have to, it is a very rich setting that needs to be depicted in details and you can't do it through narration as the books do. But we're coming to that point again: D&D are very bad writers and they don't know how to add a scene from GRRM's world. I have to repeat, good writers would add good scenes, but D&D aren't capable of that.

There are very few exceptions, for example the scene of Tywin's introduction, when he talks with Jaime while skinning a deer. Solid writing and solid acting, but most importantly that scene actually gives a lot of necessary information about the war. It's a pity that scenes like that one are exception and not the rule.

6 hours ago, Cron said:

For example, the scene in Season 1 with Robert and Cersei talking about their marriage, which I think a LOT of fans believe was a change from the books which added a lot to the characters, but did not CONTRADICT the books?

That scene added nothing to the characters. There is nothing in that scene that reveals anything about Robert or Cersei that wasn't already covered by other scenes. The dialogue in the whole is not terrible, but not particularly good either. Some lines are pretty good and in spirit of the time ("It's a neat little trick you do, you move your lips and your father's voice comes out"),  but the only real benefit from that scene is their discussion about Targaryen+Dothraki invasion, but that is one of the problems: Cersei is not really the best choice for a character who's discussing those thing with Robert. That conversation is needed, but not with Cersei.

But when we look at the topic of their relationship and their marriage, I really don't understand what is so good about that scene. The scene would be much better if they ended it after two of them burst into laughter. He says: "I wonder what's keeping everything together", and she says: "Our marriage", and they both laugh, as in sudden realization that yes, their fucked up marriage really is the only thing that's keeping the realm from collapsing. That says it all, really. You don't need a dialogue after that. And in fact, dialogue falls apart after that. It turns into a cheap melodrama, something that could be taken from old soap operas. "Was it ever possible for us?" Seriously? Does that sound like a plausible question between medieval spouses who loath each other?

The entire story practically rests on the fact that Robert and Cersei can't stand each other. That very laughter I just mentioned is so good because it rests on that fact as well. It's like they are the naked emperor, and in that moment they really don't have to pretend that they have any clothes, and they simply can't stop laughing at the fact.

But would you really share your feelings with someone you loath? Of course not, and by the way the entire idea of sharing and discussing your feelings is too modern and very contradicting to the system of values that is essential to a medieval feudal society. GRRM understands it perfectly and that is why in the books there isn't a single example of such sharing. I'm talking about deepest emotions here. When Tyrion tells the story of Tysha to Bronn, it's like he's confessing how naive he once was and he's also telling Bronn about Tywin's cruelty, but he's not sharing emotions. Cat is careful not to mention Bran and Rickon's death when she confronts Jaime in ACOK. And Jaime actually surprises himself when he tells Brienne about Aerys, and even then he doesn't go into feelings. Neither Jon nor Sam never discuss their emotions for Ygritte and Gilly, not even to each other. And so on.

That is why GRRM puts all the deepest emotions of characters into their thoughts. But of course, in the show some of that has to come out, because viewers need to hear some of that. But not like this, not as if the dialogue was taken from "Dallas".

Compared to many other added scene, this one with Robert and Cersei at least wasn't entirely ridiculous and useless, but I really don't see what is so good about it.

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Or, how about the scene with Robert, Barristan and Jaime talking about their first kills?  Again, an addition to the book material, and thus a change from the book material, which did not CONTRADICT the book material.  I liked that scene a lot, and was glad they added it.

I disliked it, that scene just shows that D&D can't write even "guys' talk". Because no, guys don't pause the entire life just so they can recount their kills, and especially if they've been around each other for years and years! Again, compared to other added scenes this one isn't particularly bad, but there is a much better example of added scene that represents "guys' talk" much better, and that's Jaime-Jory scene, when Jory brings him a letter from Ned. The dialogue is less artificial there for starters, but also it reveals something about Thoros and Theon, which maybe isn't much and maybe the majority of the audience won't remember it, but at least it's there, it's not a waste of lines or time.

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Or how about the short scene of Robert's hunt?  Once again, no CONTRADICTION of the books  but an addition to the book material, which I liked and thought supplemented the books well (I enjoyed it in part cuz, after hearing about it in the books, now we were actually seeing Robet and Renly out on the hunt, and seeing them interact which gave us more information on their relationship) 

The only thing I like about that scene is that it's short. Making the eight? Seriously?

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Or, how about the fight scene between Brienne and Sandor?   VERY popular with fans.  I thought that scene was fantastic, and much better than the corresponding material in the books (which was far less dramatic and exciting).  What are your thoughts on that fight scene?

That's one of the best fight scenes in the show for sure. But the context in which it happens is silly. Brienne just stumbles into one of the two girls she's looking for? And their horses ESCAPED OVER NIGHT? Seriously? And also the dialogue between Sandor and Brienne before the fight is very poorly written.

But please, what corresponding material in the books do you have in mind? Every of Brienne's fights in the books is much better set than this one. And I can't even begin to understand how can you prefer that to Sandor's "last days" in the books. Have you read the fight at the inn recently? Here's a little quote from that chapter, right after Polliver tells Sandor about Joffrey's death and Sansa's escape:

Quote

 

The Hound poured a cup of wine for Arya and another for himself, and drank it down while staring at the hearthfire. “The little bird flew away, did she? Well, bloody good for her. She shit on the Imp’s head and flew off.”

“They’ll find her,” said Polliver. “If it takes half the gold in Casterly Rock.”

“A pretty girl, I hear,” said the Tickler. “Honey sweet.” He smacked his lips and smiled.

“And courteous,” the Hound agreed. “A proper little lady. Not like her bloody sister.”

“They found her too,” said Polliver. “The sister. She’s for Bolton’s bastard, I hear.”

Arya sipped her wine so they could not see her mouth. She didn’t understand what Polliver was talking about. Sansa has no other sister. Sandor Clegane laughed aloud.

“What’s so bloody funny?” asked Polliver.

The Hound never flicked an eye at Arya. “If I’d wanted you to know, I’d have told you.”

 

It's funny and tragic at the same time, and it's confusing for the characters because none of them have any idea what the other one is talking about, but it reveals and hints at so much, and emotions are subtle but at the same time almost exploding, and it even sets the entire "Jeyne as Arya" ploy. Do you really think that something in the show is better than this? And just like you, I'm actually curious, it's an honest question.

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Or how about the big fight at Craster's Keep (with Jon and the NW), or the battle at Hardhome?

The fight at Craster's Keep is a blasphemy, they didn't even bother to keep track of the number of men Jon brought with himself, it constantly changes between scenes. And please let's not get into tactics, because the way they attacked the Keep is exactly the opposite of the way you attack by surprise in the middle of the night.

Hardhome had its moments, but overall the poor fight choreography ultimately ruined the scene for me, as it's often the case with poor fight choreography, not only in GOT but in general. I honestly don't see why do they keep putting all those fight scenes in movies and shows, when they can't do them realistically. Are people really excited to watch absurdly acrobatic fights where the outcome is telegraphed from miles away?

Burt eventually, Hardhome was rendered meaningless in the show itself. It's barely mentioned ever since, and even when it is mentioned, it doesn't have any effect.

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Or how about the possibility of any material from the book you DIDN'T like, which they left out?  Or IS there anything from the books you don't like?  I am curious about this.  What would you say is your least favorite stuff about the books?  By any chance, was it something they left out of the show?

I already told this, Euron is example of someone whose existence in the books I don't really understand or like. But in the show they did an even worse job with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, StepStark said:

You understood correctly but just to be clear I'm talking about the final product as it is, because in the hands of good writers changes would also be significantly better. But on the other hand good writers would keep changes to minimum because of that golden rule: if it works, don't fix it.

I already said which I prefer in my previous post. In short: I prefer the books version, because it's more appropriate for pre-modern times, except Rickon who is written unrealistically for his age in the books, but he's also written poorly in the show so there you have it.

It's necessary to add some scenes, you have to, it is a very rich setting that needs to be depicted in details and you can't do it through narration as the books do. But we're coming to that point again: D&D are very bad writers and they don't know how to add a scene from GRRM's world. I have to repeat, good writers would add good scenes, but D&D aren't capable of that.

There are very few exceptions, for example the scene of Tywin's introduction, when he talks with Jaime while skinning a deer. Solid writing and solid acting, but most importantly that scene actually gives a lot of necessary information about the war. It's a pity that scenes like that one are exception and not the rule.

That scene added nothing to the characters. There is nothing in that scene that reveals anything about Robert or Cersei that wasn't already covered by other scenes. The dialogue in the whole is not terrible, but not particularly good either. Some lines are pretty good and in spirit of the time ("It's a neat little trick you do, you move your lips and your father's voice comes out"),  but the only real benefit from that scene is their discussion about Targaryen+Dothraki invasion, but that is one of the problems: Cersei is not really the best choice for a character who's discussing those thing with Robert. That conversation is needed, but not with Cersei.

But when we look at the topic of their relationship and their marriage, I really don't understand what is so good about that scene. The scene would be much better if they ended it after two of them burst into laughter. He says: "I wonder what's keeping everything together", and she says: "Our marriage", and they both laugh, as in sudden realization that yes, their fucked up marriage really is the only thing that's keeping the realm from collapsing. That says it all, really. You don't need a dialogue after that. And in fact, dialogue falls apart after that. It turns into a cheap melodrama, something that could be taken from old soap operas. "Was it ever possible for us?" Seriously? Does that sound like a plausible question between medieval spouses who loath each other?

The entire story practically rests on the fact that Robert and Cersei can't stand each other. That very laughter I just mentioned is so good because it rests on that fact as well. It's like they are the naked emperor, and in that moment they really don't have to pretend that they have any clothes, and they simply can't stop laughing at the fact.

But would you really share your feelings with someone you loath? Of course not, and by the way the entire idea of sharing and discussing your feelings is too modern and very contradicting to the system of values that is essential to a medieval feudal society. GRRM understands it perfectly and that is why in the books there isn't a single example of such sharing. I'm talking about deepest emotions here. When Tyrion tells the story of Tysha to Bronn, it's like he's confessing how naive he once was and he's also telling Bronn about Tywin's cruelty, but he's not sharing emotions. Cat is careful not to mention Bran and Rickon's death when she confronts Jaime in ACOK. And Jaime actually surprises himself when he tells Brienne about Aerys, and even then he doesn't go into feelings. Neither Jon nor Sam never discuss their emotions for Ygritte and Gilly, not even to each other. And so on.

That is why GRRM puts all the deepest emotions of characters into their thoughts. But of course, in the show some of that has to come out, because viewers need to hear some of that. But not like this, not as if the dialogue was taken from "Dallas".

Compared to many other added scene, this one with Robert and Cersei at least wasn't entirely ridiculous and useless, but I really don't see what is so good about it.

I disliked it, that scene just shows that D&D can't write even "guys' talk". Because no, guys don't pause the entire life just so they can recount their kills, and especially if they've been around each other for years and years! Again, compared to other added scenes this one isn't particularly bad, but there is a much better example of added scene that represents "guys' talk" much better, and that's Jaime-Jory scene, when Jory brings him a letter from Ned. The dialogue is less artificial there for starters, but also it reveals something about Thoros and Theon, which maybe isn't much and maybe the majority of the audience won't remember it, but at least it's there, it's not a waste of lines or time.

The only thing I like about that scene is that it's short. Making the eight? Seriously?

That's one of the best fight scenes in the show for sure. But the context in which it happens is silly. Brienne just stumbles into one of the two girls she's looking for? And their horses ESCAPED OVER NIGHT? Seriously? And also the dialogue between Sandor and Brienne before the fight is very poorly written.

But please, what corresponding material in the books do you have in mind? Every of Brienne's fights in the books is much better set than this one. And I can't even begin to understand how can you prefer that to Sandor's "last days" in the books. Have you read the fight at the inn recently? Here's a little quote from that chapter, right after Polliver tells Sandor about Joffrey's death and Sansa's escape:

It's funny and tragic at the same time, and it's confusing for the characters because none of them have any idea what the other one is talking about, but it reveals and hints at so much, and emotions are subtle but at the same time almost exploding, and it even sets the entire "Jeyne as Arya" ploy. Do you really think that something in the show is better than this? And just like you, I'm actually curious, it's an honest question.

The fight at Craster's Keep is a blasphemy, they didn't even bother to keep track of the number of men Jon brought with himself, it constantly changes between scenes. And please let's not get into tactics, because the way they attacked the Keep is exactly the opposite of the way you attack by surprise in the middle of the night.

Hardhome had its moments, but overall the poor fight choreography ultimately ruined the scene for me, as it's often the case with poor fight choreography, not only in GOT but in general. I honestly don't see why do they keep putting all those fight scenes in movies and shows, when they can't do them realistically. Are people really excited to watch absurdly acrobatic fights where the outcome is telegraphed from miles away?

Burt eventually, Hardhome was rendered meaningless in the show itself. It's barely mentioned ever since, and even when it is mentioned, it doesn't have any effect.

I already told this, Euron is example of someone whose existence in the books I don't really understand or like. But in the show they did an even worse job with him.

Everything for you is ridiculous or badly done... you are even an expert in swordfights... while you are right to criticise somethinngs when you go to the extreme of disliking everything I can t understand why you watch got. Everything done in the show is badly done...

In the first four seasons there were lots of things well done while in the last 2 season the only good things are the filming and quality of special effects. With the worst being the dialogues of some characters and their arcs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, divica said:

in the last 2 season the only good things are the filming and quality of special effects. With the worst being the dialogues of some characters and their arcs.

So it's possible to dislike everything about this show for two years? I'm not talking about special effects because probably nobody watches the show for special effects, and besides we weren't even talking about special effects. We were talking about the writing and storytelling, and there you are saying that there's nothing to like about writing and storytelling in the last two seasons.

So my question is why is it extreme to dislike the entire show for the same reasons and not just two seasons?

Maybe the writing was bad from the start, but you didn't notice it because D&D were taking more scenes from the books and that way their poor writing wasn't as obvious. But this thread is specifically about scenes that are changed or invented for the show, which means scenes that were written specifically by D&D and their team.

And just saying, Emmys loved the last two seasons more than the first four. Is that also extreme? How do you explain that?

1 hour ago, divica said:

when you go to the extreme of disliking everything I can t understand why you watch got

It's not even that I dislike everything and I explained it. And in those scenes that I dislike I often find something good, just like I explained. So I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

And about understanding why I watch the show, you don't really have to understand everything about me. I don't know why would you even try. I'd suggest that you stick with what I wrote. You don't have to address even that, of course, nobody's forcing you, but if you want to reply to my post I think that'd be lot more logical.

1 hour ago, divica said:

you are even an expert in swordfights

I have no idea where this came from, but just in case, I don't think you need to be expert in swordfights to realize how poor is the choreography in the show in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, StepStark said:

You understood correctly but just to be clear I'm talking about the final product as it is, because in the hands of good writers changes would also be significantly better. But on the other hand good writers would keep changes to minimum because of that golden rule: if it works, don't fix it.

I already said which I prefer in my previous post. In short: I prefer the books version, because it's more appropriate for pre-modern times, except Rickon who is written unrealistically for his age in the books, but he's also written poorly in the show so there you have it.

It's necessary to add some scenes, you have to, it is a very rich setting that needs to be depicted in details and you can't do it through narration as the books do. But we're coming to that point again: D&D are very bad writers and they don't know how to add a scene from GRRM's world. I have to repeat, good writers would add good scenes, but D&D aren't capable of that.

There are very few exceptions, for example the scene of Tywin's introduction, when he talks with Jaime while skinning a deer. Solid writing and solid acting, but most importantly that scene actually gives a lot of necessary information about the war. It's a pity that scenes like that one are exception and not the rule.

That scene added nothing to the characters. There is nothing in that scene that reveals anything about Robert or Cersei that wasn't already covered by other scenes. The dialogue in the whole is not terrible, but not particularly good either. Some lines are pretty good and in spirit of the time ("It's a neat little trick you do, you move your lips and your father's voice comes out"),  but the only real benefit from that scene is their discussion about Targaryen+Dothraki invasion, but that is one of the problems: Cersei is not really the best choice for a character who's discussing those thing with Robert. That conversation is needed, but not with Cersei.

But when we look at the topic of their relationship and their marriage, I really don't understand what is so good about that scene. The scene would be much better if they ended it after two of them burst into laughter. He says: "I wonder what's keeping everything together", and she says: "Our marriage", and they both laugh, as in sudden realization that yes, their fucked up marriage really is the only thing that's keeping the realm from collapsing. That says it all, really. You don't need a dialogue after that. And in fact, dialogue falls apart after that. It turns into a cheap melodrama, something that could be taken from old soap operas. "Was it ever possible for us?" Seriously? Does that sound like a plausible question between medieval spouses who loath each other?

The entire story practically rests on the fact that Robert and Cersei can't stand each other. That very laughter I just mentioned is so good because it rests on that fact as well. It's like they are the naked emperor, and in that moment they really don't have to pretend that they have any clothes, and they simply can't stop laughing at the fact.

But would you really share your feelings with someone you loath? Of course not, and by the way the entire idea of sharing and discussing your feelings is too modern and very contradicting to the system of values that is essential to a medieval feudal society. GRRM understands it perfectly and that is why in the books there isn't a single example of such sharing. I'm talking about deepest emotions here. When Tyrion tells the story of Tysha to Bronn, it's like he's confessing how naive he once was and he's also telling Bronn about Tywin's cruelty, but he's not sharing emotions. Cat is careful not to mention Bran and Rickon's death when she confronts Jaime in ACOK. And Jaime actually surprises himself when he tells Brienne about Aerys, and even then he doesn't go into feelings. Neither Jon nor Sam never discuss their emotions for Ygritte and Gilly, not even to each other. And so on.

That is why GRRM puts all the deepest emotions of characters into their thoughts. But of course, in the show some of that has to come out, because viewers need to hear some of that. But not like this, not as if the dialogue was taken from "Dallas".

Compared to many other added scene, this one with Robert and Cersei at least wasn't entirely ridiculous and useless, but I really don't see what is so good about it.

I disliked it, that scene just shows that D&D can't write even "guys' talk". Because no, guys don't pause the entire life just so they can recount their kills, and especially if they've been around each other for years and years! Again, compared to other added scenes this one isn't particularly bad, but there is a much better example of added scene that represents "guys' talk" much better, and that's Jaime-Jory scene, when Jory brings him a letter from Ned. The dialogue is less artificial there for starters, but also it reveals something about Thoros and Theon, which maybe isn't much and maybe the majority of the audience won't remember it, but at least it's there, it's not a waste of lines or time.

The only thing I like about that scene is that it's short. Making the eight? Seriously?

That's one of the best fight scenes in the show for sure. But the context in which it happens is silly. Brienne just stumbles into one of the two girls she's looking for? And their horses ESCAPED OVER NIGHT? Seriously? And also the dialogue between Sandor and Brienne before the fight is very poorly written.

But please, what corresponding material in the books do you have in mind? Every of Brienne's fights in the books is much better set than this one. And I can't even begin to understand how can you prefer that to Sandor's "last days" in the books. Have you read the fight at the inn recently? Here's a little quote from that chapter, right after Polliver tells Sandor about Joffrey's death and Sansa's escape:

It's funny and tragic at the same time, and it's confusing for the characters because none of them have any idea what the other one is talking about, but it reveals and hints at so much, and emotions are subtle but at the same time almost exploding, and it even sets the entire "Jeyne as Arya" ploy. Do you really think that something in the show is better than this? And just like you, I'm actually curious, it's an honest question.

The fight at Craster's Keep is a blasphemy, they didn't even bother to keep track of the number of men Jon brought with himself, it constantly changes between scenes. And please let's not get into tactics, because the way they attacked the Keep is exactly the opposite of the way you attack by surprise in the middle of the night.

Hardhome had its moments, but overall the poor fight choreography ultimately ruined the scene for me, as it's often the case with poor fight choreography, not only in GOT but in general. I honestly don't see why do they keep putting all those fight scenes in movies and shows, when they can't do them realistically. Are people really excited to watch absurdly acrobatic fights where the outcome is telegraphed from miles away?

Burt eventually, Hardhome was rendered meaningless in the show itself. It's barely mentioned ever since, and even when it is mentioned, it doesn't have any effect.

I already told this, Euron is example of someone whose existence in the books I don't really understand or like. But in the show they did an even worse job with him.

From what I gather, it seems there are two scenes that are in the show but not the books that you like (at least).  One is Jaime and Jory, and the other is when Tywin is skinning the deer.   So, to address the question which is the title of this topic thread then, would you say that the inclusion of those scenes in the show is something you like better than the absence of those scenes in the books, or is the difference merely "acceptable"?

To answer your question, no I don't think the Sandor and Brienne fight scene is better than everything in the books, but I do believe it is better than how Sandor and Arya parted ways in the books.  The stuff with the horses getting away is not central to the main stuff, and I had no problem with the two groups meeting.  Sandor and Arya were leaving the Eyrie, while Pod and Brienne were going to the Eyrie. and they met along the way.  Not surprising to me.

To me, the question is not whether there's a scene in the show that's better than EVERYTHING in the books, though, the question is whether there's anything in the show that's better than corresponding material from the books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly speaking?

No.

I first read the books, I learn about the show later (I am a reader since 2002).

I did like season 1 and 2, season 3 and 4 were okay, season 5 and 6 were awful. The worst season in my point of view is season 5, season 6 was not good, but it was not worse than season 5.

I think they ruined a lot of storylines, they rushed up the story after season 4, they cut characters that were important, they invented characters that added nothing to the show, pointless characters, they waste a lot of screen time with brothel scenes and sex scenes in general, some characters were poorly developed in the show. Dorne was a train wreck, Book Dorne is really interesting, show Dorne was poorly adapted and as they realized they had screwed it up, they decided to kill Doran and Trystane, giving the lead to Ellaria and the Sand Snakes (an awful choice, they totally destroyed those characters too with poor casting and little effort to give them some cool personalities)

Olenna Tyrell (Redwyne) is being overused in my opinion, her time in the story is over, maybe she will return later in the books, but she is gone for now, she returned to Highgarden, but they decided to make her a big deal in the show, a bit too much over the top. How can she lead House Tyrell if she is no Tyrell by birth? So the Tyrells, a powerful family, with many members in the books, died out because in the show they were just Mace, Loras and Margaery?

Another thing that bothers me is how kinslaying became something normal in the tv show, everybody is killing relatives and people around them don't care.

The Ironborn were also forgotten for many seasons (except for Theon, who was present in every single season), when they decided to make it bigger, it was lazy storylines, a really awful actor to play Euron, no Victarion.

Not forgeting the waste of screentime with unecessary scenes, like Missandei, Greyworm and Tyrion telling jokes, it was cringy.

In part, I am glad the show is way below the books, because the books will be the canon story for me and I'll eagerly wait for The Winds of Winter, no matter how long George will take to publish it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cron said:

From what I gather, it seems there are two scenes that are in the show but not the books that you like (at least).  One is Jaime and Jory, and the other is when Tywin is skinning the deer.   So, to address the question which is the title of this topic thread then, would you say that the inclusion of those scenes in the show is something you like better than the absence of those scenes in the books, or is the difference merely "acceptable"?

There is no absence of those scenes in the books. I know that you just used it as a figure of speech most probably, but many people really think like that: "That scene wasn't in the books but I liked it in the show so it means that the books are in need of that scene". But it's a logical fallacy because even if those scenes were groundbreaking (they weren't, they're just decent), how could you even include them in the books? You'd have to change the entire structure of the novels. It just doesn't work like that, because those scenes were added (in the best case scenario) to work around the lack of narration in the show, so why would you (and how could you) shoehorn them in the books, when you have a better solution there (narration)?

Just as an example, tell me how could you include any of those scenes in the novels.

5 hours ago, Cron said:

To answer your question, no I don't think the Sandor and Brienne fight scene is better than everything in the books, but I do believe it is better than how Sandor and Arya parted ways in the books.  The stuff with the horses getting away is not central to the main stuff, and I had no problem with the two groups meeting.  Sandor and Arya were leaving the Eyrie, while Pod and Brienne were going to the Eyrie. and they met along the way.  Not surprising to me.

To me, the question is not whether there's a scene in the show that's better than EVERYTHING in the books, though, the question is whether there's anything in the show that's better than corresponding material from the books. 

Sorry but I have to ask at this point: how well do you remember the books? The reason is, you seem to think that the fight at the inn happens as in the show, way before Sandor and Arya part ways. It doesn't seem that you recognized that that quote I put in my previous post actually is the corresponding material, because it's taken from the last chapter in which Sandor is officially appearing, the chapter where Arya eventually leaves him to die.

About Brienne, that scene can't be included in her books arc in any meaningful way, so strictly speaking there's no corresponding material in her case, but even though I'm not the biggest fan of her book arc, I think her fight scenes there are not only great but also very meaningful for her character growth.

Oh and also, what about the silly fact that Brienne and Pod loose Arya after the fight, because of course the plot requires them to? Don't you find it stretched at least, to say the least?

But anyway, is there a point to all this questioning? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it, but if you're trying to find some contradiction or logical fallacy in my complaints about the show, I'm afraid you're wasting time. I've been watching it for years, people were complaining about the show from the logical perspective, but show lovers were just dismissing it, like: "You're just book purists, we love the show". But what they never understood is that it's not about purism or liking, but about visible and logical flaws of the show, especially in the writing.

There is no special motive for which I dislike the show or those particular scenes that we're discussing. I dislike them because they usually make no sense, because at some point they suspend the basic logic, and in some cases even the logic established by the show itself. And that's why I don't think you can logically prove that disliking the show is logically wrong or implausible, because the show is often working against the logic, because that is how bad D&D are as writers.

To get back to Occam's razor, every single scene that we're discussing here can be explained by the assumption that D&D simply don't understand the setting or the characters. But a show lover has to come up with tons of assumptions to explain how those scenes can make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...