Cron

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

1,063 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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)?

The word "absence" merely addresses whether something is present or not, not whether it was "needed" or not.  Something can be needed, but still absent.  Something can be present but not needed.

And I'm going to have to disagree that including in the books most of the scenes we are discussing would require a change in the whole story or structure of the books.  As I've said, the main thing I like about those show-scenes so much is that they do NOT contradict the books.  They merely supplement the books.  Such scenes could have been added to the books seamlessly.  Those scenes COULD have happened in the book-universe, it may just be that GRRM never told us about them.   They do not contradict anything in the books, so there would be no inconsistency.

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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

As written. As I just mentioned above, scenes that do not CONTRADICT the books could be woven in seamlessly.  Additional scenes are only problematic if they contradict the book material, and the scenes I was talking about (pertaining to Robert) do not, and neither does the Jaime and Jory scene you mentioned.  There is no reason that Jaime and Jory scene could not have been in the books, as is.

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

Okay.  I'm not confused about that.  Your quote may be from the last chapter in which Sandor officially appears in the books, but it is NOT the final scene.  Even the book chapters can be logically broken up into scenes.  I do not regard every book chapter as one, single, long scene.

To answer a question of yours more directly, though, I've read all books twice, but most recently 6 years ago (right after ADWD came out).  I believe my knowledge of the books is pretty good.  Compared to most normal fans,  I consider myself an expert, but on these boards I'd say my knowledge is about average.  I welcome refreshers, though.  Seriously.  It's one of the reasons I like to hang out on these boards.  For example, I read everything you posted, including the quotes, with interest, and that was a refresher for me (even though it doesn't change my position on anything we've been discussing)

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

The "corresponding" book material to Brienne and Sandor's fight is "the way things happened in the books."  They did not meet, they did not fight, Arya and Sandor parted ways as they did in the books.  That is the corresponding book-version of that material.

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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?

Not really.  Arya's pretty clever, Brienne was preoccupied with Sandor (a huge man and GREAT fighter she was locked in battle with), and Pod was watching the fight to see if Brienne needed some kind of assistance.  I like both Brienne and Pod a LOT, but neither are the brightest bulbs on the show anyway, and that's okay, cuz that's not who they are meant to be, so I wasn't surprised they couldn't find Arya after the fight was over, either..

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

Mmm...no, I'm not attacking your position at all.  I'm exploring your views, in direct connection with the title of this thread.

My friend, look at the title of this thread.  What does it say?  "Is There Anything In The Show that You Like Better Than The Books," right?  Okay, well, as far as I'm concerned, that's what we're discussing and exploring.  I'm not trying to find contradictions in your position or "prove you wrong" (my words).  We are talking here about your subjective opinions (and mine), so I don't think I'm going to "prove your opinion wrong" and get you to change your mind like that.  Rather, from my point of view, I've just been exploring whether, together, we can come up with ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books, and I guess the answer is "no," despite the fact that I believe you recently expressly denied that you are a "purist."

Well, I guess I don't know what definition of the word "purist"you are using then, cuz if it does not apply to your position here, I'm not sure what would.  As I understand it, you prefer the book version over the show version 100% of the time, in every conceivable way.  Is that right?  If so, and if you deny that you are a "purist," then I've got to wonder, just WHAT does the word "purist" mean to you?

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

I am not trying to logically prove that disliking the show is logically wrong.  See my comments above.  I was simply trying to explore whether there is ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books, consistent with the title of this thread.

By the way, just as a reminder about my position, and where I am coming from, there are plenty of things I dislike about the show (as compared to the books).  I prefer the book version, and if I had made the show I would have followed the books MUCH more closely.  But I can, and do,, enjoy the books and show, side by side, basically as parallel universes.  I prefer the book version, but still, there's PLENTY that they DID get right in the show that I love, most notably (but not exclusively) when they followed the books very closely (as they mostly did in Season One.  I said "mostly.")

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

Again, I actually agree with some of what you are saying more than you might suspect, I think.  The books ARE better to me.  If I had made the show, it would have followed the books MUCH more closely.  But I don't see the books and show as being locked in some titanic struggle or conflict with each other.  To me, they are parallel universes, peacefully co-existing side by side, and I can (and do) enjoy the show immensely, even the parts that contradict the books, and yes, EVEN the parts that don't make much sense.

Want an example?  Sure.  The Battle of the Bastards  Jon's survival was total nonsense, if that had been "real" he would have been dead dozens of times over.  But I STILL enjoyed watching it, cuz it was a grand, epic spectacle, on a huge "stage," that was well done FOR WHAT IT WAS.

By the way, VERY few stories DON'T have plot holes that we could pick apart.  I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but I could pick those movies apart for the next three hours based on logic, reason and common sense.  Still, though, I love them, because it's a movie, not a college exam on logical reasoning.  Do I WANT things to make sense? Absolutely, YES, as much as possible.  But I don't despise the Battle of the Bastards just cuz it's so plain that there's NO FREAKING WAY Jon could have survived that as he did.

Good conversation here, though. I think you are clearly a person of above-average intelligence, but, I think, if you were a little less rigid, I think you might find a way to enjoy the books AND the show, as I do (while still nit picking from time to time, as we pretty much all do)

Share this post


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

And I'm going to have to disagree that including in the books most of the scenes we are discussing would require a change in the whole story or structure of the books.  As I've said, the main thing I like about those show-scenes so much is that they do NOT contradict the books.  They merely supplement the books.  Such scenes could have been added to the books seamlessly.  Those scenes COULD have happened in the book-universe, it may just be that GRRM never told us about them.   They do not contradict anything in the books, so there would be no inconsistency.

But how it can not change the structure of the books? I'm not talking about what happens in those scenes, I already said I'm okay with the content, it doesn't contradict the spirit of the books for the most part. But in which chapters would you included those scenes, or more precisely, in whose chapters?

3 hours ago, Cron said:

There is no reason that Jaime and Jory scene could not have been in the books, as is.

Just focus on that one scene and forget other added scenes we discussed. I don't see how it's possible to include it in the books. Can you just suggest in which chapter to put it?

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Your quote may be from the last chapter in which Sandor officially appears in the books, but it is NOT the final scene.  Even the book chapters can be logically broken up into scenes.  I do not regard every book chapter as one, single, long scene.

...

The "corresponding" book material to Brienne and Sandor's fight is "the way things happened in the books."  They did not meet, they did not fight, Arya and Sandor parted ways as they did in the books.  That is the corresponding book-version of that material.

Sorry but aren't these two statements somewhat contradicting? If we go by the first statement, then there isn't a corresponding material in the books because there is no corresponding scene. But if we go by the second statement, then that quote I put in my post (fight in the inn) actually is the corresponding material.

Sandor in the books "dies" because of the fight in the inn. You can't shoehorn another fight (with Brienne or whoever) between that fight and his death, because his "death" comes immediately after the fight and is the direct result of the fight. It pretty much is one scene in the books. If you want to add his fight with Brienne, something has to change radically for both Sandor&Arya and Brienne. So while the fight scene in the show is pretty interesting, what lead to it and what came out of it makes it not really worth it, because Sandor's "last days" and Brienne's whole arc are much better in the books for many reasons.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Well, I guess I don't know what definition of the word "purist"you are using then, cuz if it does not apply to your position here, I'm not sure what would.  As I understand it, you prefer the book version over the show version 100% of the time, in every conceivable way.  Is that right?  If so, and if you deny that you are a "purist," then I've got to wonder, just WHAT does the word "purist" mean to you?

You're talking about the outcome but not the cause, and purism is about the cause. Purism is that you dislike something no matter how good it maybe, simply because it's different from the purity you cherish. But that's not the case with me, isn't it? I never criticized even a single scene in this entire thread from the position of "it's different than in the books", but only on the basis of logical complaints. You maybe disagree with those complaints or maybe you don't care to much of them and therefore enjoy the show, and that's your right, but it doesn't make me a purist. D&D's poor writing is what made me dislike all those scenes, not purism.

In fact, I dislike many scenes which they tried to stay faithful to the books, and I also stated many times than some of D&D's ideas weren't bad and better writers would make good changes from that ideas.

4 hours ago, Cron said:

I can (and do) enjoy the show immensely

I have no problem with that, and that is why we aren't discussing that. We're discussing the quality, and not the likability of the show. In fact, I don't even know how can you discuss likability, but never mind.

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Want an example?  Sure.  The Battle of the Bastards  Jon's survival was total nonsense, if that had been "real" he would have been dead dozens of times over.  But I STILL enjoyed watching it, cuz it was a grand, epic spectacle, on a huge "stage," that was well done FOR WHAT IT WAS.

This is a perfect example of what we don't have any reason to discuss. You like that scene and how can anyone tell you not to like it? That's absurd. And also absurd would be the discussion about it. But the logic and the realism and the actual quality of the scene is fit for analysis and discussion.

Just one thing I disagree: EVERYTHING can be well done "for what it was", and that's why it's not a good basis for analysis. For the analysis to be meaningful more practical criteria is needed, like logic and realism and consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, StepStark said:

But how it can not change the structure of the books? I'm not talking about what happens in those scenes, I already said I'm okay with the content, it doesn't contradict the spirit of the books for the most part. But in which chapters would you included those scenes, or more precisely, in whose chapters?

Ah, I see what you are saying.  A very fair point.  None of those Robert scenes had a chapter-POV character in them.

Okay, that is a great explanation of how it would disrupt the structure, but still, my other points remain.  I like those scenes a lot precisely because they were not in the books, but COULD have happened in the book-story, but we just weren't given them, for whatever reason (and perhaps the reason is what you say, cuz there was no chapter-POV character present for any of those 3 scenes with Robert)

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Just focus on that one scene and forget other added scenes we discussed. I don't see how it's possible to include it in the books. Can you just suggest in which chapter to put it?

Got it.  I see what you are saying now, and that is a strong point.  I guess what I meant when I said those scenes could have happened in the books without disrupting the structure is that those scenes could have happened in the books' STORY, but "offstage."

Technically, though, you are right.  In order to actually add those scenes to the books would take some work, possibly adding entire chapters with a new POV character (probably Robert, since he was the only one present for all 3 of those scenes)

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Sorry but aren't these two statements somewhat contradicting? If we go by the first statement, then there isn't a corresponding material in the books because there is no corresponding scene. But if we go by the second statement, then that quote I put in my post (fight in the inn) actually is the corresponding material.

To me, some comparisons between books and shows have what I would call "directly corresponding material" (where the books and show are VERY similar), and some comparisons have "indirectly corresponding material" (where, for example, entire scenes are chopped out or added in).  For an example of the latter, the fight between Brienne and Sandor DOES have "indirectly corresponding material" in the books.  There is no actual fight scene in the books, BUT there is overlap with some of the events, such as how and why Arya and Sandor parted ways.

At least, that's how I view it.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Sandor in the books "dies" because of the fight in the inn. You can't shoehorn another fight (with Brienne or whoever) between that fight and his death, because his "death" comes immediately after the fight and is the direct result of the fight. It pretty much is one scene in the books. If you want to add his fight with Brienne, something has to change radically for both Sandor&Arya and Brienne. So while the fight scene in the show is pretty interesting, what lead to it and what came out of it makes it not really worth it, because Sandor's "last days" and Brienne's whole arc are much better in the books for many reasons.

Well, I agree with you that the show's fight scene between Brienne and Sandor DOES "contradict" the books, b/c it is a major discrepancy between them.  I did not intend to suggest that that scene could be easily shoehorned into the books, though.  For the scenes that I said do not contradict the books and could have been part of the book-story, I believe I specified the Robert scenes and the Jaime and Jory scen you mentioned.

In theory, though, GRRM could have incorporated the Brienne vs. Sandor fight scene, although, yes, some changes would be needed.  I thought that in the books some time passed between when Sandor was wounded and when he parted ways with Arya.  I thought the wound was festering and became infected, like in the show, but maybe I'm wrong about that.  Still, though, with a pretty minor change (Sandor not being wounded quite so badly at the inn), GRRM could have still had Sandor fight Brienne plausibly, but still injured enough to make it realistic that she beat him (anyone who denies that Brienne ONLY beat the Hound cuz he was already so messed up is, I think, simply dreaming.  Clearly, the Hound was NOT at 100%, in fact, at times prior to that he could barely walk, and Brienne BARELY beat him as it was.  I think it's obvious that if he had been at full strength he would have beaten her, and probably without a whole lot of difficulty, which is not surprising, since he is a VERY big, VERY strong man, which matters a lot in melee fighting, especially some of the fighting they were doing, without weapons.   At full strenght and size, I'd have to estimate Sandor outweighs Brienne by AT LEAST 50 to 100 pounds of muscle, and anyone who thinks that doesn't matter in the kind of fight they had is dreaming)

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

You're talking about the outcome but not the cause, and purism is about the cause. Purism is that you dislike something no matter how good it maybe, simply because it's different from the purity you cherish. But that's not the case with me, isn't it? I never criticized even a single scene in this entire thread from the position of "it's different than in the books", but only on the basis of logical complaints. You maybe disagree with those complaints or maybe you don't care to much of them and therefore enjoy the show, and that's your right, but it doesn't make me a purist. D&D's poor writing is what made me dislike all those scenes, not purism.

Hmmm.  An interesting point of view, and I do NOT claim to know better than you do what is going on in your mind (I have a small pet peeve about other people trying to tell me what I think, claiming to know that better than I do, so I try not to do that to others).  Having said that, as human beings we are ALL subject to subconscious biases, and I've got to say, at some point it starts to add up to pretty big coincidences that you seem to prefer ALL book material to ALL show material.   What would you say is the statistical probability of that, without some underlying thread that runs through and connects all those instances by you of favoring the books over the show?

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

In fact, I dislike many scenes which they tried to stay faithful to the books, and I also stated many times than some of D&D's ideas weren't bad and better writers would make good changes from that ideas.

Well, that's interesting.  I'd be happy to hear more about those two categories of things.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

I have no problem with that, and that is why we aren't discussing that. We're discussing the quality, and not the likability of the show. In fact, I don't even know how can you discuss likability, but never mind.

Well, in my mind, "quality" is HIGHLY subjective, which gives it major overlap with "likability."

"Beauty is in the eye fo the beholder," right?  Frankly, I don't see how we could totally separate quality and likability.  Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?  A very useful tool in thinking about things.  Picture two circles on a piece of paper, partially overlapping each other.  One circle represents quality, and the other represents likability.  The Venn diagram tells us they are not always exactly the same thing for all purposes, but there IS substantial overlap between them, and in this case I think the overlap is pretty big, b/c "quality" and "likability" are both HIGHLY subjective when evaluating and talking about a show like GoT.  

Indeed, different people place different values on different things when judging "quality" and "likability."  You, it seems, place a VERY high value on logic.  That's okay, I do TOO (I really do.  You might be surprised by how true that statement is.)  But other people don't care very much about that at all, and to them watching ANY show CAN be mindless brain candy, and they LOVE it.

And on that spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," there are a LOT of different points, where most people fall (between the two extremes of the spectrum)

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

This is a perfect example of what we don't have any reason to discuss. You like that scene and how can anyone tell you not to like it? That's absurd. And also absurd would be the discussion about it. But the logic and the realism and the actual quality of the scene is fit for analysis and discussion.

I actually agree quite a bit with a lot of stuff you're saying.  But please see my immediately preceding discussion.

Let's say, that on the spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," we have a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "mindless brain candy," and 10 being "pure logic."  I'd say I'm an 8 or 9, depending on the type of show we are watching.  But the fact that some people may be a 1 or a 2 does not make them "wrong," it just makes them different, in my opinion, and to them even a show that you might judge as being of very low "quality" is actually very high "quality," cuz your evaluation of "quality" places a much higher emphasis on whether things make sense, while some other people, I guarantee you, couldn't care LESS if it makes no sense.

My friend, we are talking about "ART" here.  GoT is an artistic expression, not a college exam on logical reasoning.  And different people like different kinds of art.  Personally, I favor "realism" (and I have to assume you do, too).  If I go into an art museum and look at some highly abstract "art" that I can't even make sense of, well, that doesn't do much for me, but other people LOVE it, and the fact that you and I can't make logical sense of some bizarre abstraction does not mean it is of poor "quality" in some objective way.  (Have you seen "art" where people are just literally throwing paint from cans at a canvass on a wall?  I look at that stuff, and I'm baffled, but hey, to each his own.)

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Just one thing I disagree: EVERYTHING can be well done "for what it was", and that's why it's not a good basis for analysis. For the analysis to be meaningful more practical criteria is needed, like logic and realism and consistency.

I too place a VERY high value on logic and realism and consistency, so I get what you're saying.  But in my mind, (a) I don't think the books are perfect either (although I love them a lot), (b) I'm mellow about differences b/c I view books and show about parallel universes, and (c) as I've said, even when something is radically illogical (like Jon surviving the Battle of the Bastards) I have the ability to "suspend disbelief," and just accept it and enjoy it for what it was (a grand spectacle of a battle, which it was)

You seem to me to be a HIGHLY analytical person.  Well, I am too, VERY much so, but I don't allow that part of my brain to get too much in the way of enjoying something which I KNOW is never going to meet the highest standards of perfection.  If something gets TOO bad, I'll stop watching it, sure but meanwhile, I just continue to watch, tending to focus more often on the good than the bad (although that does NOT mean that no nit-picking or criticism is warranted.  In fact, there's plenty of that on these boards.   Although I'm happy to discuss these things with you on my thread, and thank you for your extensive contributions to it, have you seen the "Rant and Rave Without Repercussions" threads?  Whoa.  HARRR!!!)

Share this post


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

Hmmm.  An interesting point of view, and I do NOT claim to know better than you do what is going on in your mind (I have a small pet peeve about other people trying to tell me what I think, claiming to know that better than I do, so I try not to do that to others).  Having said that, as human beings we are ALL subject to subconscious biases, and I've got to say, at some point it starts to add up to pretty big coincidences that you seem to prefer ALL book material to ALL show material.   What would you say is the statistical probability of that, without some underlying thread that runs through and connects all those instances by you of favoring the books over the show?

But you don't think that it's just as possible, if not even more so, that all the campaign and the hype and the buzz make people subconsciously favor the show more than they'd naturally would?

I'm old enough to remember many shows with that fate. While they're on air and the hype is on, everybody seems obsessed with it and it looks like the best thing that ever happened to television. But then after the show ends and few years passes, many realize that it was just overrated. But of course, at that point they're already overrating another show that is the plaything of the moment.

When I'm analyzing a show I'm trying to assess how would it look to completely unbiased eyes that are looking for a quality material to watch, and I definitely don't see anything special that GOT has to offer to that kind of viewer. In fact, it has good stuff to offer (almost exclusively scenes taken from the books), but it also has embarrassingly bad stuff, and that doesn't go well with unbiased but demanding viewers.

2 hours ago, Cron said:

Well, that's interesting.  I'd be happy to hear more about those two categories of things.

The most glaring example for me is the first Stannis' scene in the show, when they burn the statues of the Seven. It's a reasonably faithful scene, especially if we compare it to later seasons, but really, what was the point of that scene? Religions are largely absent from the show until season 5 (High Sparrow), but even then the religion just becomes one more player in The Game and not a spiritual need as in the books (it has political influence there too of course, but that's not the primary function of religion in the books). The entire context in which that scene makes sense is absent from the show so why keep that scene at all? I think it only added to confusion.

Also Vale tribes. The point of Vale tribes in the books is to be Tyrion's personal army, but what's the point of Tyrion's personal army if Tyrion is going to sleep through the battle as in the show?

2 hours ago, Cron said:

Well, in my mind, "quality" is HIGHLY subjective, which gives it major overlap with "likability."

"Beauty is in the eye fo the beholder," right?  Frankly, I don't see how we could totally separate quality and likability.  Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?  A very useful tool in thinking about things.  Picture two circles on a piece of paper, partially overlapping each other.  One circle represents quality, and the other represents likability.  The Venn diagram tells us they are not always exactly the same thing for all purposes, but there IS substantial overlap between them, and in this case I think the overlap is pretty big, b/c "quality" and "likability" are both HIGHLY subjective when evaluating and talking about a show like GoT.  

Indeed, different people place different values on different things when judging "quality" and "likability."  You, it seems, place a VERY high value on logic.  That's okay, I do TOO (I really do.  You might be surprised by how true that statement is.)  But other people don't care very much about that at all, and to them watching ANY show CAN be mindless brain candy, and they LOVE it.

And on that spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," there are a LOT of different points, where most people fall (between the two extremes of the spectrum)

I actually agree quite a bit with a lot of stuff you're saying.  But please see my immediately preceding discussion.

Let's say, that on the spectrum between "pure logic" and "mindless brain candy," we have a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "mindless brain candy," and 10 being "pure logic."  I'd say I'm an 8 or 9, depending on the type of show we are watching.  But the fact that some people may be a 1 or a 2 does not make them "wrong," it just makes them different, in my opinion, and to them even a show that you might judge as being of very low "quality" is actually very high "quality," cuz your evaluation of "quality" places a much higher emphasis on whether things make sense, while some other people, I guarantee you, couldn't care LESS if it makes no sense.

My friend, we are talking about "ART" here.  GoT is an artistic expression, not a college exam on logical reasoning.  And different people like different kinds of art.  Personally, I favor "realism" (and I have to assume you do, too).  If I go into an art museum and look at some highly abstract "art" that I can't even make sense of, well, that doesn't do much for me, but other people LOVE it, and the fact that you and I can't make logical sense of some bizarre abstraction does not mean it is of poor "quality" in some objective way.  (Have you seen "art" where people are just literally throwing paint from cans at a canvass on a wall?  I look at that stuff, and I'm baffled, but hey, to each his own.)

I too place a VERY high value on logic and realism and consistency, so I get what you're saying.  But in my mind, (a) I don't think the books are perfect either (although I love them a lot), (b) I'm mellow about differences b/c I view books and show about parallel universes, and (c) as I've said, even when something is radically illogical (like Jon surviving the Battle of the Bastards) I have the ability to "suspend disbelief," and just accept it and enjoy it for what it was (a grand spectacle of a battle, which it was)

I'm not denying the importance of likability, I'm just saying that it can't be discussed (unless it's analyzed with tons of data from surveys and studies but that's not what we're doing here anyway).

And also, don't take my words literally. When I'm talking about logic and realism, it's because GOT presents itself as a drama set in fictional land, as something that aspires to realism more than to fantasy. There'd be no point in looking for logic and realism in LOTR because that's not that kind of story.

2 hours ago, Cron said:

You seem to me to be a HIGHLY analytical person.  Well, I am too, VERY much so, but I don't allow that part of my brain to get too much in the way of enjoying something which I KNOW is never going to meet the highest standards of perfection.  If something gets TOO bad, I'll stop watching it, sure but meanwhile, I just continue to watch, tending to focus more often on the good than the bad (although that does NOT mean that no nit-picking or criticism is warranted.  In fact, there's plenty of that on these boards.   Although I'm happy to discuss these things with you on my thread, and thank you for your extensive contributions to it, have you seen the "Rant and Rave Without Repercussions" threads?  Whoa.  HARRR!!!)

But isn't that what bias is? You said it, with your own words, that you "don't allow" critical parts of your mind to "get too much in the way" of enjoying the show, and that you are "tending to focus more often on the good than the bad". Well, for me to be unbiased would be not to favor your enjoyment over your critical mind and not to focus deliberately on either good or bad.

When I read books, I didn't do any of that because I didn't need to, because they were so good. When I watch a good movie or a good show, same thing. Why is it too much to ask the same thing from GOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Age of the characters

Cutting a good chunk of AfoC. I might be alone but I think that novel is straight up bad and extremely unfilmable.

Speeding up certain plotlines to an actual ending

Jon Snow going to Hardhome

There are probably a few more but these were the first things that came to mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

But you don't think that it's just as possible, if not even more so, that all the campaign and the hype and the buzz make people subconsciously favor the show more than they'd naturally would?

Sure, there's bias in favor of the show, too.  No doubt.  But I don't think I've communicated with anyone who has read the books and seen the show and believes the show is better in all ways.  

But "bias in favor of the show"  doesn't necessarily make people biased in favor of the show "wrong," either.  If they enjoy it, that's fine, just like the person who loves highly abstract art, even though I don't. 

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

I'm old enough to remember many shows with that fate. While they're on air and the hype is on, everybody seems obsessed with it and it looks like the best thing that ever happened to television. But then after the show ends and few years passes, many realize that it was just overrated. But of course, at that point they're already overrating another show that is the plaything of the moment.

Sure. These things are called "fads," and they come and go, as you basically say.  GoT might be one of those things, but some things last longer.  Star Wars has been booming for 40 years, with no end in sight (indeed, last I heard Disney says they plan to continue making Star Wars movies indefinitely.  In other words, I'm sure, as long as they are making great money, which they ARE doing.  Same with Disney/Marvel superhero movies.  Last I heard, they are planned indefinitely, meaning they have many projects in many stages of development, and have no plans to stop initiating new projects, as I understand it.)

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

When I'm analyzing a show I'm trying to assess how would it look to completely unbiased eyes that are looking for a quality material to watch, and I definitely don't see anything special that GOT has to offer to that kind of viewer. In fact, it has good stuff to offer (almost exclusively scenes taken from the books), but it also has embarrassingly bad stuff, and that doesn't go well with unbiased but demanding viewers.

Well, as I"ve said, if I had made the show, it would have followed the books much more closely, and added material would be just about exclusively stuff that does not contradict the books (some allowances have to be made for budget reasons, though.  We can't get around that, I don't think, at least not until virtual reality allows authors to just sit around imagining stuff and having a computer convert it to viewable images, or even raw information to be downloaded into the "viewer's" brain as virtual reality, too.  I love talking about stuff like that, I'm a huge sci-fi fan)

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

The most glaring example for me is the first Stannis' scene in the show, when they burn the statues of the Seven. It's a reasonably faithful scene, especially if we compare it to later seasons, but really, what was the point of that scene? Religions are largely absent from the show until season 5 (High Sparrow), but even then the religion just becomes one more player in The Game and not a spiritual need as in the books (it has political influence there too of course, but that's not the primary function of religion in the books). The entire context in which that scene makes sense is absent from the show so why keep that scene at all? I think it only added to confusion.

Well, I certainly won't try to defend such changes from books to show.  However, I will say this:  In my opinion, the books in ANY story are almost always going to be better than a show of the same story b/c the books can give vastly more detail and information.No getting around that.

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

Also Vale tribes. The point of Vale tribes in the books is to be Tyrion's personal army, but what's the point of Tyrion's personal army if Tyrion is going to sleep through the battle as in the show?

In my opinion, that change was likely made to (a) save time, and (b) save budget money.  Such a battle would have been expensive to film, especially so early in the show when the budget was smaller.  I think we have no choice but to make allowances for that.  It would be nice if the showrunners had infinite money and infinite time to get everything perfect, but they don't.  i think you might be holding the show to standards they can't possibly meet.  They've got to produce this stuff in what you and I call the "real world," including time and budget limitations, and it's a LOT cheaper and quicker to have Tyrion knocked out than to film that battle.

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

I'm not denying the importance of likability, I'm just saying that it can't be discussed (unless it's analyzed with tons of data from surveys and studies but that's not what we're doing here anyway).

Mmmm...I think likability can be discussed.  Again, go back to my "art museum" discussion.  Consider highly abstract art.  People discuss it all the time, and whether they like it, without analyzing it in terms of logic and reason.  As I've said, people have different priorities about what they value, and some people "feel" A LOT more than they "think," believe me.  I guarantee you that is true.

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

And also, don't take my words literally. When I'm talking about logic and realism, it's because GOT presents itself as a drama set in fictional land, as something that aspires to realism more than to fantasy. There'd be no point in looking for logic and realism in LOTR because that's not that kind of story.

Hmmm.  I'm not sure about that.  LOTR is a STRONG allegory, and was intended as such, I've heard.   My understanding is that a lot of logic and reason was intended by the author, and I think we can evaluate how much we believe he succeeded at that. 

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

But isn't that what bias is? You said it, with your own words, that you "don't allow" critical parts of your mind to "get too much in the way" of enjoying the show, and that you are "tending to focus more often on the good than the bad". Well, for me to be unbiased would be not to favor your enjoyment over your critical mind and not to focus deliberately on either good or bad.

Sure, the viewing experience is highly subjective, and there is SOME form of "bias" (good or bad) in every viewer, I think.

Personally, I choose to focus more on positivity, and frankly I think that leads to a happier, healthier life.

But each person has to make their own choice about that.

On 7/16/2017 at 2:10 PM, StepStark said:

When I read books, I didn't do any of that because I didn't need to, because they were so good. When I watch a good movie or a good show, same thing. Why is it too much to ask the same thing from GOT?

Answer:  Largely because of budget and time restrictions (but not exclusively b/c of these things, I admit).  Wouldn't it be nice if they could hook GRRM's brain up to a computer, download the story as he imagines it, then give us that in virtual reality?  Well, I have good news.  That technology is coming, and may not be too far away, in fact (relatively speaking)

(By the way, Westeros has been running very poorly for me lately.  I'm guessing it's b/c of the high traffic b/c the new season is out.  Don't be surprised if I take a long time to reply to something.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Cron said:

Sure, there's bias in favor of the show, too.  No doubt.  But I don't think I've communicated with anyone who has read the books and seen the show and believes the show is better in all ways.  

You simply came to this forum after many members who agreed with me already left.

But maybe we can turn this around, for example maybe you should tell me one thing that you are absolutely certain that show did better than the books. You probably think that for a lot of things, but pick one that you are absolutely certain that is undeniably better in the show and let's see what arguments can be found for and against it.

Quote

But "bias in favor of the show"  doesn't necessarily make people biased in favor of the show "wrong," either.  If they enjoy it, that's fine, just like the person who loves highly abstract art, even though I don't. 

Agree. Just like "bias against the show" also isn't necessarily "wrong". That's why I try not to discuss likability.

Quote

Well, as I"ve said, if I had made the show, it would have followed the books much more closely, and added material would be just about exclusively stuff that does not contradict the books (some allowances have to be made for budget reasons, though.  We can't get around that, I don't think, at least not until virtual reality allows authors to just sit around imagining stuff and having a computer convert it to viewable images, or even raw information to be downloaded into the "viewer's" brain as virtual reality, too.  I love talking about stuff like that, I'm a huge sci-fi fan)

Of course that budget isn't limitless, that's jut common sense. But do you think that any of my complaints that we've discussed here can be explained by financial reasons?

Quote

Well, I certainly won't try to defend such changes from books to show.  However, I will say this:  In my opinion, the books in ANY story are almost always going to be better than a show of the same story b/c the books can give vastly more detail and information.No getting around that.

In my opinion, that change was likely made to (a) save time, and (b) save budget money.  Such a battle would have been expensive to film, especially so early in the show when the budget was smaller.  I think we have no choice but to make allowances for that.  It would be nice if the showrunners had infinite money and infinite time to get everything perfect, but they don't.  i think you might be holding the show to standards they can't possibly meet.  They've got to produce this stuff in what you and I call the "real world," including time and budget limitations, and it's a LOT cheaper and quicker to have Tyrion knocked out than to film that battle.

You misunderstood me here because I didn't object against the omitting of the battle but against keeping Vale tribes when without the battle they obviously have no purpose in the story. I'm just saying that if you're not going to film the battle, then Tyrion's personal army doesn't have any purpose so cut Vale tribes completely. I was talking about scenes where they tried to stay faithful to the books but didn't work. And really, what was the purpose of Vale tribes in the show? None. They could easily do without them. And that's what I'm saying, that D&D make mistakes even when they're trying to stay faithful to the books.

Edited by StepStark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin, Bronn, the Hound, and the lack of Greyjoy story time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nyser1 said:

Tywin, Bronn, the Hound, and the lack of Greyjoy story time. 

Interesting.  I take it by "Greyjoy" you're not counting Theon, since his time was expanded in the show?

Guess you don't like the rest of them though, huh?

Any particular reason?  (Personally, they are not my favorite characters, but I found some it it interesting, especially Asha's stuff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, StepStark said:

You simply came to this forum after many members who agreed with me already left.

Okay, but what I was saying was that I don't think I've seen anybody who prefers everything in the SHOW over the BOOKS.  (Not that I'm claiming you are such a person, of course)

23 hours ago, StepStark said:

But maybe we can turn this around, for example maybe you should tell me one thing that you are absolutely certain that show did better than the books. You probably think that for a lot of things, but pick one that you are absolutely certain that is undeniably better in the show and let's see what arguments can be found for and against it.

Easy. Aging up of the characters.  This thread is LOADED with posts and arguments to the effect that the show-ages are better than the book-ages, I'm not going to re-type it all.  The arguments have been made MANY times in MANY places, and I don't think I've seen a person ever claim that the book ages are better.  Indeed, as I've mentioned, my understanding is that even GRRM says if he had it to over, he would have made them older in the books, too.

That was like catching starving fish in a barrel, my friend. 

23 hours ago, StepStark said:

Agree. Just like "bias against the show" also isn't necessarily "wrong". That's why I try not to discuss likability.

Of course that budget isn't limitless, that's jut common sense. But do you think that any of my complaints that we've discussed here can be explained by financial reasons?

I had an understanding that the show having Tyrion knocked out for that battle was an excellent example, but as I understand it now you are saying you DON'T object to Tyrion being knocked out of the battle.  Is that correct?

in any event, I'm sorry, I'm just not going to review our numerous very lengthy posts above looking for a complaint of yours that I think neatly fits into this category.  If one occurs offhand to me, I'll try to mention it, but I interact with a number of people here (as I'm guessing you do), and I just don't have enough free time on my hands to spend the time it would take scouring prior posts by you to find some exact language of a complaint that I think fits this.

23 hours ago, StepStark said:

You misunderstood me here because I didn't object against the omitting of the battle but against keeping Vale tribes when without the battle they obviously have no purpose in the story. I'm just saying that if you're not going to film the battle, then Tyrion's personal army doesn't have any purpose so cut Vale tribes completely. I was talking about scenes where they tried to stay faithful to the books but didn't work. And really, what was the purpose of Vale tribes in the show? None. They could easily do without them. And that's what I'm saying, that D&D make mistakes even when they're trying to stay faithful to the books.

Even if the budget "required" Tyrion to be knocked out for the battle, I think the Vale tribes still served a purpose because they played active roles in multiple other scenes (I won't list them all, but one such scene would definitely include when Tyrion had a few with him when he confronted Pycelle.  Why did Tyrion take them?  In my opinion, it was cuz they were some of the very few people he knew he could trust in KL)

I believe the Vale tribes also served a purpose b/c lots of fans of the books wanted to see them on-screen b/c in the books they are a significant part of Tyrion's story, and I think a lot of fans would say that seeing SOME Vale hill tribe characters and action is better than none.

Regarding your last sentence, I guess all I can say is that I too prefer the books, I too would agree that D&D did not do a perfect job OR do the show the way I would have, but again, to me there's no great conflict between the books and show.  I view them as parallel universes, one of which I prefer (books) but both of which I enjoy.

You know, "suspension of disbelief" is not something that just applies to magical or sci-fi special effects or storylines.  To a degree, it can also sometimes apply even plot holes in a story.  I said "to a degree."  Sure, if the plot has so many craters it looks like the surface of the moon then THAT'S a big problem, but I don't expect anything to be perfect.  If a person is determined to look hard enough, I believe flaws can be found in virtually EVERYTHING, even GRRM's books.  Each person has to decide how far that should go for themselves, though, and of course that is highly subjective.

By the way, what were your thoughts about 701?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Easy. Aging up of the characters.  This thread is LOADED with posts and arguments to the effect that the show-ages are better than the book-ages, I'm not going to re-type it all.  The arguments have been made MANY times in MANY places, and I don't think I've seen a person ever claim that the book ages are better.  Indeed, as I've mentioned, my understanding is that even GRRM says if he had it to over, he would have made them older in the books, too.

That was like catching starving fish in a barrel, my friend. 

In short, this is why I don't think that aging up of the characters is really a change, let alone an improvement: 1) there was nothing wrong with ages of characters in the books. 2) aging up of the characters in the show didn't affect characters or their arcs. 3) ages are never mentioned in the show except once or twice and only for Bran and Rickon.

As I already said, I like ages in the books because that's how kids behaved and matured in the past. That all changed in the last 70 years, but in both world wars there were children aged 8 or 9 or 10 who made some truly heroic and extraordinary achievements. We now think that a 15 year old could never lead an army but that's how old was Alexander The Great when he was leading his first military campaign for example. I think I already said that the only child who acts unrealistically for his age is Rickon, because a 3 year old boy can barely run properly and not to mention that a 3 year old boy can't have coherent thoughts on something like death and grave. Aging up of Rickon in the show solved those problems in the first season, but in later seasons Rickon was written so badly that even his age can't be seen as improvement.

About other characters, their ages are not even mentioned, and their behavior is either as in the books or much less mature (Robb), which is not a problem because a boy of 18 can easily loose his kingdom over a mistake just like a boy of 15 can.

And not to mention that ages in the show aren't aged up for some artistic reason, but because English laws prohibit sex scenes with minors.

I like books ages because it forces readers to think more deeply about the mentality of people from the past, but I get that many people like show ages more and I really have no problem with either version. If GRRM wrote a story in which Dany and Jon are 15 year old and Bran is 10, I wouldn't mind of course because I wouldn't even know better, so I'm not objecting the change in the show on its own. But in reality, that change is just over-hyped because it really meant nothing for the story itself. In fact, show fans usually have no idea about how old the characters in the show really are (and how could they know, of course), so they're really talking about actors' ages, which is weird actually.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

I had an understanding that the show having Tyrion knocked out for that battle was an excellent example, but as I understand it now you are saying you DON'T object to Tyrion being knocked out of the battle.  Is that correct?

in any event, I'm sorry, I'm just not going to review our numerous very lengthy posts above looking for a complaint of yours that I think neatly fits into this category.  If one occurs offhand to me, I'll try to mention it, but I interact with a number of people here (as I'm guessing you do), and I just don't have enough free time on my hands to spend the time it would take scouring prior posts by you to find some exact language of a complaint that I think fits this.

I don't object omitting the battle because they said they didn't have the money to film it, but I don't really like the way they did it. In season 2 they also omitted Robb's battle, but that was much more clever. That with Tyrion being knocked out looks like a very poor slapstick to me, it's not funny it's just cheap. It'd be much better if they faded out of the battle at the beginning, briefly moved to some other scene that happens in the same time (possibly Cat waiting with Rodrik in the wood) and then go back to the very and or immediate aftermath of Tyrion's battle. That'd be much better than Tyrion being knocked out for the entire battle.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Even if the budget "required" Tyrion to be knocked out for the battle, I think the Vale tribes still served a purpose because they played active roles in multiple other scenes (I won't list them all, but one such scene would definitely include when Tyrion had a few with him when he confronted Pycelle.  Why did Tyrion take them?  In my opinion, it was cuz they were some of the very few people he knew he could trust in KL)

I believe the Vale tribes also served a purpose b/c lots of fans of the books wanted to see them on-screen b/c in the books they are a significant part of Tyrion's story, and I think a lot of fans would say that seeing SOME Vale hill tribe characters and action is better than none.

You definitely recall that Vale tribes simply disappeared from the show at some point, without any explanation or reason. That's how important for the show they were, they simply weren't in the show any more at some point and nobody even bothered to mention them ever since. In total they appeared in 2-3 scenes and they could easily be replaced in every one of those scenes, either by Bronn or someone else.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

By the way, what were your thoughts about 701?  

I still didn't see it, I'm probably going to wait a few more weeks and then binge watch episodes because I'm not too much interested in the show any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 1:13 PM, Cron said:

Interesting.  I take it by "Greyjoy" you're not counting Theon, since his time was expanded in the show?

Guess you don't like the rest of them though, huh?

Any particular reason?  (Personally, they are not my favorite characters, but I found some it it interesting, especially Asha's stuff)

The damphair chapters in particular are painful to read. Asha and Theon are more enjoyablr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nyser1 said:

The damphair chapters in particular are painful to read. Asha and Theon are more enjoyablr.

Well, I hear you, but luckily there are a LOT more Asha and Theon chapters than Damphair or Victarion.

My favorite Greyjoy would have to be Asha, no one else even close.  I prefer the book version, BUT, the actress has done a good job in the show with "Yara" I think, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.7.2017 at 10:02 AM, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

I find it very questionable that he felt the need to both make Daenerys 13 *and* include explicit sex scenes for her. And I could excuse it all for a piece of art if it wasn't for the way he describes the sweat trickling between her breasts, at which point it just passes into This Author is a Creep. 

Yeah i felt a bit uncomfortable reading the explicit sex scenes that included her. That is really one of the reasons i don`t want feel like reading the books. I don`t want to read about explicit sex scenes includning children. 

 

Sorry about my bad spelling and grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Feologild said:

Yeah i felt a bit uncomfortable reading the explicit sex scenes that included her. That is really one of the reasons i don`t want feel like reading the books. I don`t want to read about explicit sex scenes includning children. 

 

Sorry about my bad spelling and grammar.

Yeah, I think nearly everyone agrees with you on that.  Even GRRM , as I understand it, now says if he had it to do over he would age up th characters like they are in the show.

So, I take it you like the aging up in the show?  Anything else in the show that you prefer over the books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The pacing - cutting out large portions of AFFC and ADWD was a great shout, if somewhat obvious.  I have little doubt the show would have been cancelled had the show tried to faithfully follow them.

2) Dorne - Let's face it, in the show Dorne is laughable.  But intentionally or otherwise at least it is funny.  Dorne in the books is awful.  You can literally skip chapters and it doesn't impact the story at all.

3) No Quentyn or (f)Aegon - Quentyn, asbsolutely pointless character.  (f)Aegon gets introduced in the 5th book at a time the author needs to be drastically reducing the amount of characters in the series.

4) Daario & Euron - OK so the show has made a mistake even including Euron (terrible book character and almost as laughable in the show) but at least the show hasn't made Euron like the book version, who is basically an OTT eccentric evil Jack Sparrow style rip off.  As for Daario, thank fuck they didn't give him blue hair.....

5) Greyjoys - See Dorne.  The show has handled the Greyjoys reasonably well considering what a dog's dinner they are in the books.

6) Jon Snow - The book version of Jon Snow massively went off the rails in ADWD.  It was like the real Jon Snow was kidnapped and replaced by a dumber version.  The show Jon Snow has remained pretty consistent throughout the series.

7) Tyrion - Jon Snow x 10.  ADWD Tyrion story arc was fucking ridiculous.  I'm very pleased they dispensed with it.

8) The ending - We're almost certainly going to get one.  I first read AGOT in the summer of 1998.  I am beyond fed up of waiting for the books to come out, especially given the quality of the last two.  If it wasn't for the show I'd never get closure.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I think nearly everyone agrees with you on that.  Even GRRM , as I understand it, now says if he had it to do over he would age up th characters like they are in the show.

So, I take it you like the aging up in the show?  Anything else in the show that you prefer over the books?

I can`t think of anything. But i am far behind with the books. and i doubt that i will start reading more of the books before he finish the series if he does that.

 

 

Edited by Feologild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pacing. I don't think the plotting is any good but I do enjoy the swifter nature of the show. The first book is my favourite purely because it moved with such determination and wasn't bogged down by fluff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bronn, Maegaery, Sandor

 

Also the exchange between Tywin and Arya at Harrenhal. 

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