Cron

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

867 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, kimim said:

I haven't read the leaks :)

I'm also not sure why there's a reluctance to attribute negative motives to Sansa. Arya is now an assassin who kills with a smile; she can apply what she learned from the FM. Bran is a prophet whose decisions have already doomed Bloodraven, the remaining Children, and Hodor. He learned, too. Sansa's teacher is LF, the man who specializes in manipulation. Why should Sansa be the one Stark kid who does nothing with her new knowledge? 

That's why i didn't elaborate further haha. We might continue this discussion eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SecretWeapon said:

That's why i didn't elaborate further haha. We might continue this discussion eventually.

Ah. Thank you! Can't wait to see the new season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kimim said:

I do not dislike the show, at all.

My problem with the show Sansa is that I think the show's hinting that Sansa's turning villainous, but doesn't have the guts to SAY it. Take season 6, where Sansa hides the Vale army from Jon. Why does she do this? I think it's possible to argue that she does it because she wants Ramsay to destroy Jon and the wildlings for her (she wouldn't want to look like a kin killer) after which she can enter and destroy Ramsay. Feeding him to the dogs would fit that take; it's a villainous, unNed thing to do. Her sending Brienne away fits, too: she wouldn't want a follower who'll attempt to stop her. However, Sansa isn't given the lines to support that interpretation, though her actions support it, and her being a pupil of LF would certainly support it.

Or, just maybe, Sansa wants something else. Problem is the script still isn't there. Sansa does these dramatic things, but she's mostly shown looking troubled, which is not enough.

As a result, I don't know what Sansa wants, or why she hid that army from Jon. That's a problem, as Sansa is important, and her decisions have huge consequences in season 6.

Great conversation, I read it (and some posts after this one of yours) with interest (I replied to this post of yours b/c it seemed to be the one where you laid out your thoughts on Sansa in the most detail)

You have provided me with a fresh view on Sansa, something that I hadn't really considered:  The possibility that she really IS going BAD, including the possibility that the reason she didn't tell Jon about the Knights of the Vale i not just cuz she didn't trust him, and not just cuz she's stupid, but b/c she actually WANTED Ramsay's forces to wipe out Jon and his forces, so that when the KotV arrived, she would have the most power by far, and rule everything left. Under this theory, the Knights actually arrived a little too soon, I suppose.

So...is it plausible?  Maybe.  As I believe you mentioned a few times, certain supporting information is not given, but that does NOT make this theory impossible, and ironically enough, it IS the most rational explanation I've heard for her NOT telling Jon about the KotV (indeed, no other explanation has made ANY sense to me, and I've just chalked it up to either (a) very bad writing, and/or (b) Sansa is an idiot)

Because we HAVE been given a lot of information that she was fundamentally good to begin with (albeit immature and spoiled), I suppose the rationale for her going truly bad would have to be psychological trauma from all her experiences, possibly driving her literally insane.

This theory would also explain her smile after setting the dogs on Ramsay, which never sat well with me otherwise.

It's also interesting that:

Spoiler

Sansa is NOT one of the 5 "safe" characters.  For anyone who doesn't know, years ago, allegedly, GRRM gave an outline of the show to HBO, and it had 5 major characters who were going to be "safe" at the end, and Sansa was NOT one of them.  If she DOES go truly bad, that could explain why.  Perhaps her wicked ways will lead to her ruination.

Personally, I'd rather Sansa does not go truly bad, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can't remember if I've posted on this thread before sorry, lmao.

What I think is definately better on the TV show is the ages of the people,they're older. When I read the books I do something a lot will be angry with me for: I mentally age the characters 5 or 10 years. So to me, the book Dany isn't 15 but 20. Lyanna wasn't 14 but 20. For me anyway. Robert Baratheon wasn't 16 during the war but 22.

Edited by Wolfgirly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wolfgirly said:

I can't remember if I've posted on this thread before sorry, lmao.

What I think is definately better on the TV show is the ages of the people.When I read the books I do something a lot will be angry with me for: I mentally age the characters 5 or 10 years. So to me, the book Dany isn't 15 but 18. Lyanna wasn't 14 but 20. For me anyway. Robert Baratheon wasn't 16 during the war but 22.

Great comment, yeah, I think that may be a good way to go.

In my opinion, the No. 1 thing people seem to like better about the show is the characters being aged up.

IN FACT, although I can't cite it or provide a link, my strong memory is that GRRM himself has said his biggest regret in all of ASOIAF was making the characters so young, and if he was able to do it all over again he would age them up in the books, so I guess even GRRM agrees.

Someone may be able to provide a link for that, or maybe you could find it, I dunno.

Of course, though, if everyone gets aged up, you may have to be "Wolfwomany" rather than "Wolfgirly."

HAR!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cron said:

Great comment, yeah, I think that may be a good way to go.

In my opinion, the No. 1 thing people seem to like better about the show is the characters being aged up.

IN FACT, although I can't cite it or provide a link, my strong memory is that GRRM himself has said his biggest regret in all of ASOIAF was making the characters so young, and if he was able to do it all over again he would age them up in the books, so I guess even GRRM agrees.

Someone may be able to provide a link for that, or maybe you could find it, I dunno.

Of course, though, if everyone gets aged up, you may have to be "Wolfwomany" rather than "Wolfgirly."

HAR!!

LOL You're right that my name speaks a lot about me,but I'm ageing myself downwards because I'm very grown up and over 30,lol.

I shall look for the comments by GRRM and maybe someone in his circle of authorship friends can alter the age in future editions of his books. It seems that he set out to make a book with adventurous strong teens but ended up forgetting maybe. I wonder if so many years have passed from when Ned arrived as Roberts hand to when Arya left Bravos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-I, too, believe Cersei is a much better character in the show. I actually feel sorry for Cersei when she loses her children and when she is enduring the Walk of Shame. Cersei's love for her children has allowed me to connect with her on a human and emotional level. Book Cersei, on the other hand, has done so many deplorable acts that I can't bring myself to have any sympathy for her. She doesn't have one redeeming quality and is too one dimensional. Her chapters in Feast were amusing at times, but I expect more from villains/antagonists in this story and prefer when they have a little depth.

-I also enjoy Stannis's character a lot more in the show. I liked how he saw himself as the messiah that was meant to save the world only to pull the rug from under his feet. I found his book counterpart to be rather boring. 

-Arya being Tywin's cup bearer instead of Roose's. Maisie Williams and Charles Dance had amazing chemistry.

-Dorne's limited screen time. Dorne didn't work in the show, so I'm glad that D&D decided to cut their losses and cleaned up the mess. I wish Martin would do the same.

-Cutting Lady Stoneheart, Aegon, Tyrion and Brienne's travelogues, etc. D&D have kept the story tight and focused and have not lost control of the narrative, unlike the author.

-Hardhome. It was an amazing set piece and brought the main threat into focus. I didn't like how the White Walkers disappeared in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wolfgirly said:

LOL You're right that my name speaks a lot about me,but I'm ageing myself downwards because I'm very grown up and over 30,lol.

I shall look for the comments by GRRM and maybe someone in his circle of authorship friends can alter the age in future editions of his books. It seems that he set out to make a book with adventurous strong teens but ended up forgetting maybe. I wonder if so many years have passed from when Ned arrived as Roberts hand to when Arya left Bravos.

"Over 30" is still very young...in fact, I'd say you're just ENTERING the prime years of your life.

Regarding the timeline, or chronology, I think maybe about 4 years have passed between Robert naming Ned his Hand and Arya leaving Braavos, but someone may correct me with more precise information.

I think there are two problems with the book characters being so young.  (a) It makes a lot of readers uncomfortable (including me), especially in sexual situations, and (b) it makes a lot of their actions implausible because they are so young, whether we are talking about Robb being such a fantastic military leader, or Jon Snow being such a great fighter, or a variety of other things.

As such, I think it's good that even GRRM seems to understand he probably should have made quite a few of the characters older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

-I, too, believe Cersei is a much better character in the show. I actually feel sorry for Cersei when she loses her children and when she is enduring the Walk of Shame. Cersei's love for her children has allowed me to connect with her on a human and emotional level. Book Cersei, on the other hand, has done so many deplorable acts that I can't bring myself to have any sympathy for her. She doesn't have one redeeming quality and is too one dimensional. Her chapters in Feast were amusing at times, but I expect more from villains/antagonists in this story and prefer when they have a little depth.

-I also enjoy Stannis's character a lot more in the show. I liked how he saw himself as the messiah that was meant to save the world only to pull the rug from under his feet. I found his book counterpart to be rather boring. 

-Arya being Tywin's cup bearer instead of Roose's. Maisie Williams and Charles Dance had amazing chemistry.

-Dorne's limited screen time. Dorne didn't work in the show, so I'm glad that D&D decided to cut their losses and cleaned up the mess. I wish Martin would do the same.

-Cutting Lady Stoneheart, Aegon, Tyrion and Brienne's travelogues, etc. D&D have kept the story tight and focused and have not lost control of the narrative, unlike the author.

-Hardhome. It was an amazing set piece and brought the main threat into focus. I didn't like how the White Walkers disappeared in the books.

Great post, great food for thought, I read it all with interest.

I agree with a lot of your opinions, and disagree with some, but hey, that's why we're here I think.

I liked the Dorne stuff in books and show, though (probably in the show cuz I really enjoy Jaime and Bronn scenes), but I strongly agree with you about Hardhome, that was Grade A stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cron said:

Great conversation, I read it (and some posts after this one of yours) with interest (I replied to this post of yours b/c it seemed to be the one where you laid out your thoughts on Sansa in the most detail)

You have provided me with a fresh view on Sansa, something that I hadn't really considered:  The possibility that she really IS going BAD, including the possibility that the reason she didn't tell Jon about the Knights of the Vale i not just cuz she didn't trust him, and not just cuz she's stupid, but b/c she actually WANTED Ramsay's forces to wipe out Jon and his forces, so that when the KotV arrived, she would have the most power by far, and rule everything left. Under this theory, the Knights actually arrived a little too soon, I suppose.

So...is it plausible?  Maybe.  As I believe you mentioned a few times, certain supporting information is not given, but that does NOT make this theory impossible, and ironically enough, it IS the most rational explanation I've heard for her NOT telling Jon about the KotV (indeed, no other explanation has made ANY sense to me, and I've just chalked it up to either (a) very bad writing, and/or (b) Sansa is an idiot)

Because we HAVE been given a lot of information that she was fundamentally good to begin with (albeit immature and spoiled), I suppose the rationale for her going truly bad would have to be psychological trauma from all her experiences, possibly driving her literally insane.

This theory would also explain her smile after setting the dogs on Ramsay, which never sat well with me otherwise.

It's also interesting that:

  Hide contents

Sansa is NOT one of the 5 "safe" characters.  For anyone who doesn't know, years ago, allegedly, GRRM gave an outline of the show to HBO, and it had 5 major characters who were going to be "safe" at the end, and Sansa was NOT one of them.  If she DOES go truly bad, that could explain why.  Perhaps her wicked ways will lead to her ruination.

Personally, I'd rather Sansa does not go truly bad, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

In favor of the KotV arriving too early, there is the fact that shortly before they arrive, Jon was buried under all those bodies. Maybe Sansa and LF assumed that he was dead, and moved in? His clawing his way out of that "grave" was unexpected.

But then, as you say, the script isn't there. The script does support the reasoning that she doesn't trust Jon. There's one conversation between them right before the battle (I think). She complains that he doesn't listen to her, and he agrees to hear her out. She tells him that she knows Ramsay, that Ramsay is better than he is at manipulation, and will lure him into a trap. He dismisses what she has to say; he believes that he's as good as Ramsay at that sort of thing, which is laughable. He then goes on to dismiss everything else that she has to say, leaving her frustrated. She is, of course, correct: he begins the Battle of the Bastards by undoing his own strategy and leading his men to what would have been a massacre, without the arrival of the KotV.

Having said that, the trust issue doesn't work, as hiding an entire army is too strange and extreme. She wants Ramsay dead. Why not tell Jon about the Vale? Keep it hidden to lure Ramsay out of WF, then destroy him. She doesn't do that.

She is LF's student. That involves an education in manipulation, in playing the game. Bran and Arya are what they were trained to be. Why should Sansa be the exception? Hiding the Vale, using the Vale to destroy Jon and take over, is exactly what LF's pupil would do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2016 at 0:14 PM, Cron said:

Whenever a book is adapted to the screen (t.v. and/or movie screen), the book is almost always going to remain better if for no other reason than b/c of time limitations that make it virtually impossible to fully adapt with the same level of detail as a book has.

Now, I have a strong impression that the general consensus among book readers would be that most changes D&D have made for the show are bad, and that most people would have preferred they just more taithfully follow the books (think of all seasons done the way Season One was, but without all the Ros scenes, which would have been about 98 percent faithful to AGOT, I think)

But is there anything in the show you like better than the books???

For me, two things come immediately to mind that I like better in the show:  The expanded role of Bronn, and the scene where Brienne and Pod met Arya and Sandor, and Brienne and Sandor fought (there are probably a few other things I like better in the show, too, but the two I mentioned occurred to me first)

Make no mistake, though, overall, I'm in the camp that would say most changes were for the worse, but I still love the show (just not quite as much as the books)

Your thoughts? 

Well, at least Daenerys isn't blind to what her father was like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kimim said:

In favor of the KotV arriving too early, there is the fact that shortly before they arrive, Jon was buried under all those bodies. Maybe Sansa and LF assumed that he was dead, and moved in? His clawing his way out of that "grave" was unexpected.

But then, as you say, the script isn't there. The script does support the reasoning that she doesn't trust Jon. There's one conversation between them right before the battle (I think). She complains that he doesn't listen to her, and he agrees to hear her out. She tells him that she knows Ramsay, that Ramsay is better than he is at manipulation, and will lure him into a trap. He dismisses what she has to say; he believes that he's as good as Ramsay at that sort of thing, which is laughable. He then goes on to dismiss everything else that she has to say, leaving her frustrated. She is, of course, correct: he begins the Battle of the Bastards by undoing his own strategy and leading his men to what would have been a massacre, without the arrival of the KotV.

Having said that, the trust issue doesn't work, as hiding an entire army is too strange and extreme. She wants Ramsay dead. Why not tell Jon about the Vale? Keep it hidden to lure Ramsay out of WF, then destroy him. She doesn't do that.

She is LF's student. That involves an education in manipulation, in playing the game. Bran and Arya are what they were trained to be. Why should Sansa be the exception? Hiding the Vale, using the Vale to destroy Jon and take over, is exactly what LF's pupil would do.

 

Well, I think it's a fascinating theory.  I'd be more sure of it if it was all canon, though.  GRRM might weave that complex tapestry, but I doubt the showrunners will or would.  I have a feeling that in the show what we saw is what we got, The End, and it goes no deeper than that.

LIke the VERY complex (and often clever) theories used to explain the off the charts implausible final battle(s) between Arya and the Waif. (There is NO WAY any normal human being could survive those stab wounds, race through the streets, defeat the Waif, then just smile and casually stroll away after confronting Jaqen, and there are lengthy, detailed theories that "explain" it all, including a theory that it was all in Arya's head the whole time, a la "Fight Club," the Arya Durden theory)

Or theories that explain Jon Snow's off the charts implausible survival of the Battle of the Bastards itself  (Trust me, if that was a real battle, Jon would have been dead dozens of times over, starting with the first 5 seconds when he faced down a cavalry charge on foot with nothing but a sword.  As I've noted elsewhere, Jon would have been killed almost instantly even if those had been nothing more than stampeding cattle who were NOT actively trying to kill him with armed soldiers on their backs, and there are theories that "explain" it all.)

My belief:  Sansa is not plotting so deeply.  Arya has no superpowers that allow her to do what she did.  And Jon has no magical luck which is EVER going to explain how he survived the Battle of the Bastards.

Rather, in my opinion, it was all done for dramatic effect on the t.v. screen.  I believe Sansa didn't tell Jon about the KotV cuz it was really DRAMATIC for them to make their big entrance at the last minute and save the day (as in LOTR, Riders of Rohan), The End.  

I believe Arya was able to do what she did cuz it made for really dramatic moments when she got stabbed repeatedly, survived, then had a chase scene through the streets with the Waif, managed to defeat the Waif even though Arya could barely walk at he time (despite the fact that she had never beaten the Waif before...yeah, yeah, I know, she snuffed the candle and beat her in the dark, but come on, she could barely STAND).  

And I believe Jon Snow survived the Battle of the Bastards the way he did cuz it made the whole thing really DRAMATIC to film and watch, The End.

But hey, who knows, maybe the showrunners will prove me wrong, and much more fancy and intriguing explanations will be given for all of this.

Doubt it, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, at least Daenerys isn't blind to what her father was like. 

Yeah, I think that's a really important development in the show, and I consider it support for my theory that in the end, there will be no single "winner" of the Game of Thrones but rather, there will be a tri-archy (a monarchy with 3 equal co-rulers, as described in a Tyrion chapter of ADWD)

I believe Dany's realization about her father is critical to this, b/c in the end it will allow her to share power, with the understanding that too much power in one person is a bad thing, especially if that person's family has a history like the Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Cron said:

LIke the VERY complex (and often clever) theories used to explain the off the charts implausible final battle(s) between Arya and the Waif. (There is NO WAY any normal human being could survive those stab wounds, race through the streets, defeat the Waif, then just smile and casually stroll away after confronting Jaqen, and there are lengthy, detailed theories that "explain" it all, including a theory that it was all in Arya's head the whole time, a la "Fight Club," the Arya Durden theory)

Or theories that explain Jon Snow's off the charts implausible survival of the Battle of the Bastards itself  (Trust me, if that was a real battle, Jon would have been dead dozens of times over, starting with the first 5 seconds when he faced down a cavalry charge on foot with nothing but a sword.  As I've noted elsewhere, Jon would have been killed almost instantly even if those had been nothing more than stampeding cattle who were NOT actively trying to kill him with armed soldiers on their backs, and there are theories that "explain" it all.)

My belief:  Sansa is not plotting so deeply.  Arya has no superpowers that allow her to do what she did.  And Jon has no magical luck which is EVER going to explain how he survived the Battle of the Bastards.

ita on Arya. Her bits season 6 were terrible, worse, even, than Dorne. They could have fixed it: Jaqen could have explained FM's interest in Arya and the Starks. If magic had been involved in her survival, he could have talked about it then. But no.

Jon, though, worked for me. I loved the fact that season 6 didn't treat him the way it treated Dany. He was not perfect. He was capable of making huge mistakes: he is resurrected, having discovered that "nothing" awaits him after death. He's not happy. He's near-suicidal. Possibly he destroys his own strategy and leads his men to massacre because he no longer cares about strategy, his own life, or his men's lives. He takes a final risk to save Rickon from that "nothing," and fails, falling into Ramsay's trap. He fights, ends up buried under that mass of bodies, then discovers in himself the desire to live, to achieve something, and crawls back up in a second resurrection that (imo) worked better than the first. As for his surviving the battle: it's unlikely, but I'll accept it. Shit happens. Heroes survive. How many unlikely encounters has Tyrion survived? Battle of the Bastards was my favorite episode, ever.

Re Sansa: I think you're right. She does what she does, just because. What frustrates me about it is that the show was on the cusp of finally, FINALLY!!! bringing forth the "new Sansa" it's been talking about for years. It chickened out.

Edited by kimim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kimim said:

ita on Arya. Her bits season 6 were terrible, worse, even, than Dorne. They could have fixed it: Jaqen could have explained FM's interest in Arya and the Starks. If magic had been involved in her survival, he could have talked about it then. But no.

Jon, though, worked for me. I loved the fact that season 6 didn't treat him the way it treated Dany. He was not perfect. He was capable of making huge mistakes: he is resurrected, having discovered that "nothing" awaits him after death. He's not happy. He's near-suicidal. Possibly he destroys his own strategy and leads his men to massacre because he no longer cares about strategy, his own life, or his men's lives. He takes a final risk to save Rickon from that "nothing," and fails, falling into Ramsay's trap. He fights, ends up buried under that mass of bodies, then discovers in himself the desire to live, to achieve something, and crawls back up in a second resurrection that (imo) worked better than the first. As for his surviving the battle: it's unlikely, but I'll accept it. Shit happens. Heroes survive. How many unlikely encounters has Tyrion survived? Battle of the Bastards was my favorite episode, ever.

Re Sansa: I think you're right. She does what she does, just because. What frustrates me about it is that the show was on the cusp of finally, FINALLY!!! bringing forth the "new Sansa" it's been talking about for years. It chickened out.

Great stuff, i read your entire post with interest.

Battle of the Bastards is your favorite episode, huh?  I loved it too.  Favorite?  Maybe.  Maybe.  Another episode that occurs to me as one of my favorites though is "The Climb."  Just tremendous, I thought, but of course there are MANY episodes that I love.

Regarding Sansa, yeah, a lot of people (including me) regarded the shoehorning of Sansa into Jeyne Poole's storyline as a regression in Sansa's character development.  She took several steps backwards, regressing to "victim status," despite the fact that in her last scenes at the Vale, she was much more confident, self-assured and in control (even exercising power over LF himself, as she held his life in her hands)

My guess is that she'll end up on top again, though, even if it is short-lived, and even IF she does not ultimately survive this current series run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I actually thought The Climb, aside from Varys and Littlefingers exchange at the end, was one of the weaker episodes of Season 3. 

The episode directly before it however, Kissed by Fire, remains one of my very favourites. From the Hound/Beric fight, to Cersei/Tyrion exchange, to Margaery/Sansa, to Jaime/Brienne bath scene, to Jon/ygritte, and the wonderful ending scene with Tywin taking charge and putting Tyrion and Cersei in their place. Just a magnificent episode.

 

Back on topic, the most obvious thing the show does way better than the books, is pacing. The books drag for waaaaay too long in some places without any advancement of plot or character. 

The show does neither plot or character as well as the books in terms of quality - it isnt as deep or complex - but it certainly flows better. 

Edited by Gaz0680

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

I actually thought The Climb, aside from Varys and Littlefingers exchange at the end, was one of the weaker episodes of Season 3. 

The episode directly before it however, Kissed by Fire, remains one of my very favourites. From the Hound/Beric fight, to Cersei/Tyrion exchange, to Margaery/Sansa, to Jaime/Brienne bath scene, to Jon/ygritte, and the wonderful ending scene with Tywin taking charge and putting Tyrion and Cersei in their place. Just a magnificent episode.

 

Back on topic, the most obvious thing the show does way better than the books, is pacing. The books drag for waaaaay too long in some places without any advancement of plot or character. 

The show does neither plot or character as well as the books in terms of quality - it isnt as deep or complex - but it certainly flows better. 

Very interesting, thanks for contributing.

Yeah, I guess the thing I love about The Climb SO much is that final scene.  Just incredible.   Littlefinger talking, revealing stuff, what makes him tick, juxtaposed with images of the characters and a variety of things that were happening to them, culminating with Jon and Ygritte reaching the top of the Wall, standing up, and looking south into the bright day.

But hey, like I said, I've got a LOT of episodes I love.  I'd say my average episode grade is over an 8, maybe even a 9, with plenty of 10's.  Certainly, the one you mentioned (Kissed by Fire) is awesome, too.

I liked your comments about the relative strengths of books versus show, too.  Certainly, what you said about the books is the main reason that, to me, the books of an adaptation are nearly ALWAYS better than the t.v. show, or movie, or whatever, and GoT is no exception for me.  On the other hand, overall, GoT is my all-time favorite show.  They did a number of things I dislike, but they got a LOT more right than wrong, in my opinion.

Regarding parts of the books that some people say drag, I think it's just a matter of personal taste.  Lots of people seemed to dislike Brienne's "travelogues," but to me that is CLASSIC "questing knight" stuff, in the finest tradition of "medieval-type" "fiction."

To me, GRRM is the best developer of characters I've ever read, and I strongly prefer his style to writers who spend way too much time telling me what the landscape or the sky looks like, which makes me think "Uh, I really don't much care about the EXACT shade of magenta the sky was.  Tell me about the characters, that's why I'm here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/6/2017 at 0:59 AM, Cron said:

HARRRR!!!!

Glad to be of service.  I think I liked "Winerfell" better, though.

Sounds like a natural place for Tyrion, and "The Imp's Delight."

Don't like wine, huh?  What do you like, then?  Or do you just not drink, or too young to drink, or what?

Haha no im not too young to drink but i just dont like drinks ...well most of them there are some exceptions.: D

But seeing how much you like winerfell i think its safe to say you do like drinks dont you?:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Valedina said:

Haha no im not too young to drink but i just dont like drinks ...well most of them there are some exceptions.: D

But seeing how much you like winerfell i think its safe to say you do like drinks dont you?:cheers:

Well, yeah, to be honest, I do like drinks, but that's not the main reason I liked "Winerfell."  I just thought it was clever, but I guess it ended up being a typo.  Oh well.

I don't drink much wine, though.  Rum, beer and vodka are my main choices.  Like Tyrion, "I drink, and I know things," and as he told Pod, "if it was easy, everyone would do it."   HARRR!!! (Just kidding, Tyrion drinks FAR more than me.) 

What are your "exceptions," and which GoT character do you believe that makes you the most similar to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 3:04 AM, Dragon in the North said:

-I, too, believe Cersei is a much better character in the show. I actually feel sorry for Cersei when she loses her children and when she is enduring the Walk of Shame. Cersei's love for her children has allowed me to connect with her on a human and emotional level. Book Cersei, on the other hand, has done so many deplorable acts that I can't bring myself to have any sympathy for her. She doesn't have one redeeming quality and is too one dimensional. Her chapters in Feast were amusing at times, but I expect more from villains/antagonists in this story and prefer when they have a little depth.

-I also enjoy Stannis's character a lot more in the show. I liked how he saw himself as the messiah that was meant to save the world only to pull the rug from under his feet. I found his book counterpart to be rather boring. 

-Arya being Tywin's cup bearer instead of Roose's. Maisie Williams and Charles Dance had amazing chemistry.

-Dorne's limited screen time. Dorne didn't work in the show, so I'm glad that D&D decided to cut their losses and cleaned up the mess. I wish Martin would do the same.

-Cutting Lady Stoneheart, Aegon, Tyrion and Brienne's travelogues, etc. D&D have kept the story tight and focused and have not lost control of the narrative, unlike the author.

-Hardhome. It was an amazing set piece and brought the main threat into focus. I didn't like how the White Walkers disappeared in the books.

Hardhome in the show is amazing. But to be fair we don't know what will happen in the books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now