Jump to content

How do D&D decide what to keep/cut..?


Rachel of Oldstones

Recommended Posts

They go online and find the biggest ASOIAF fans. They find out what their favorite parts of the books were, and they systemically go through and destroy each of those sections. The more devoted the GRRM worshiper, the more their most loved parts of the story are ruined. Or at least that is what some of you make it seem like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, FreeParking said:

They go online and find the biggest ASOIAF fans. They find out what their favorite parts of the books were, and they systemically go through and destroy each of those sections. The more devoted the GRRM worshiper, the more their most loved parts of the story are ruined. Or at least that is what some of you watching the show makes it seem like.

There, now that seems a little more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Jon Snow's death wasn't shocking though, because it was built up via good storytelling. They introduced resurrection earlier in the series and had a red priestess loyal to Jon made aware of the possibility. With Lady Stoneheart, it is the grotesque nature of her resurrection that makes her so shocking. If D&D only care about shocking people, they wouldn't have been able to resist putting her in, but they don't. They care about telling a good, coherent story, and Lady Stoneheart doesn't fit the bill.

 

Beric appeared in season 6 and will likely appear in season 7, so they definitely didn't forget about him. The Hound even made a joke about how Beric doesn't seem able to die.

I don't understand why Jon's Snow resurrection is considered good storytelling. The only thing that changed after that was the fact that 

-he didn't want to die again. Fine. He had risked his life before. So, no difference.

-it was an easy way to make him leave the watch so as he can be King, etc. Just one thing then.

But it has a number of flaws:

-They never mention the resurrection again, after he talks with Mel.

-He has not changed at all, which is quite inconsistent if we compare it to Beric's. Jon had died once only, but he had been dead longer than him, so it's normal to expect a change, like with LSH. I'm sure the books will take that aspect into consideration.

-He left the NW, but he executed the men that had killed him as the Lord Commander. Edd should have done it. If his watch has ended, he can't execute them because he is not longer a member of the NW.

So he was resurrected in order to shock, shock, and shock the audience. It was totally insonsistent. I could forgive the detail he execeuted the members that killed him if there were some consequences in his character, but they didn't even did it well. On the other hand, with LSH, they had:

-mentioned her many times during the season: Walder Frey and his son, Edmure Tully....

-It would have been shocking because nobody would have expected that after Jon's resurrection.

-They could have even add a layer of detail in Jon's resurrection, to contrast his resurrection with Cat's. They could say LSH had been dead for so long (more than one year), whereas Jon not (and thus Jon has not changed a lot), but now that the only other person who has resurrected is Beric, Jon's resurrection is awkward in this aspect bc Beric actually changed. With three references they can say resurrection depends on: number of times, time that the person has been dead.....with two references: one having changed and the other being exactly the same it doesn't work. They should explain that, at least.

So the real reason LSH didn't appear was because Jon had to have all the protagonism and because they only had 15 episodesw left and didn't know how her story ends. Not because they didn't find it shocking enough, or not shocking in a coherent way. (in fact not cutting LSH would have been more coherent and Jon's resurrection was handled so badly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

There, now that seems a little more accurate.

Yes, sometimes I think they actually try to avoid the best parts of ASOIAF, because it seems it has been done on purpose.

I'm glad Bran's story has not been completely destroyed and despite being furious with some things they did that I don't approve I can still enjoy him. For instance, I liked how they still adapted when he says "Ned" to his father, even if the vision was different. I also liked the way they made the visions, with Bran being able to walk.

But it's pretty clear at this moment  there are only 4 main characters and the complex story is just like a sitcom of them sitting in a sofa telling jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Yes, sometimes I think they actually try to avoid the best parts of ASOIAF, because it seems it has been done on purpose.


Yup, I am absolutely convinced of this. d$d's ego's and arrogance won't allow for them to accept the valid criticism that they have received, so they lash out at those who dare to question the decisions they have made. Just look at benioff's tastefull display after winning his first, greatly undeserved Emmy. I mean come on, giving the bird to your critics, just because HBO bought him an award. Really classless benioff.

And then take instances such as changing "only Cat" to "your sister", or omitting "Edd, fetch me a block". Admittedly, these are insignificant changes, in regards to the overall story, but what was the point of changing them? These are, to the fans of the series that d$d are supposedly "adapting", popular and iconic lines. If all of your success has come from adapting an already brilliant and amazing piece of work, I feel like it is your obligation to attempt to capture the essence of the original story, and include these moments that the fans of the series are looking forward to seeing on screen.

But d$d just had to change them. Why? Just because they could. Just because they think they can write better then GRRM. Just because they wanted to give their critics another middle finger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

But it's pretty clear at this moment  there are only 4 main characters and the complex story is just like a sitcom of them sitting in a sofa telling jokes.

And the sad part is, they actually wasted an entire segment to show just this. They cut so much important stuff, with the excuse that time is limited, but they have time for St. Tyrion to sit around doing absolutely nothing, but telling lame jokes to a couple of recently emancipated slaves. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Darkstream said:


Yup, I am absolutely convinced of this. d$d's ego's and arrogance won't allow for them to accept the valid criticism that they have received, so they lash out at those who dare to question the decisions they have made. Just look at benioff's tastefull display after winning his first, greatly undeserved Grammy. I mean come on, giving the bird to your critics, just because HBO bought him an award. Really classless benioff.

And then take instances such as changing "only Cat" to "your sister", or omitting "Edd, fetch me a block". Admittedly, these are insignificant changes, in regards to the overall story, but what was the point of changing them? These are, to the fans of the series that d$d are supposedly "adapting", popular and iconic lines. If all of your success has come from adapting an already brilliant and amazing piece of work, I feel like it is your obligation to attempt to capture the essence of the original story, and include these moments that the fans of the series are looking forward to seeing on screen.

But d$d just had to change them. Why?Just because they could. Just because they think they can write better then GRRM. Just because they wanted to give their critics another middle finger.

 

I don't want to go off-topic but I'll answer you with my thoughts on this:

Sincerely, I know of those little changes and as show watcher who became a reader after, I don't care as much as people who read them first; but I understand there is no reason to change them at all, on the contrary. As you say, they have the opportunity to put the atmosphere needed for the sequence, imagine the scenery, give details, but there's no reason to change them. Sometimes they change it in a way it seems they are mocking the readers: "Fire and Blood".

In fact, after S5 I could forgive all of these things, and I'd like to appreciate the show for what it used to be, but it's very difficult. If there was a cohesion in the story they are telling, but there isn't. Almost  everything they invent doesn't make change in its own universe: Dorne, Stannis' battle, Shireen's issue, Jon's resurrection, LF marrying Sansa to Ramsay, Sansa not telling Jon of the Vale Army, Jaquen dying with Arya's face,..I could go on.

I saw his recent interview when he praises GRRM's work and I don't understand it. If you really are happy to adapt these books, how can you talk about the characters that he has created even if you consciously know you have erased the characterisation that you used to adapt properly? Big example: Jaime. And this need to achieve a shocking ending, "all of them are going to die" so quickly, no matter the story? Is that the audience only  cares about the shocking deaths? I don't think so.

The proof is that IMHO they adapted the first seasons quite well. There are things I didn't like and after reading the books I care about more of them, but if you were able to be good at adapting, why do you invent everything? Why don't you talk with the author?

And sure, they know about some critics's views, but the fact that they have won Emmys in the worst seasons is the worst thing that could have happened to GOT, because it's like people are saying: we don't care about the story! we just want death and violence! Tits and dragons!

If there are more people watching that means that

-some people didn't watch the first seasons, so they are not familiarised with good material. They are probably only watching it as a shocking material. OK.

-what about the people who started with the first season and has fallen in love with the characters and want to know the ending? Don't they deserve a better-written story? Some cohesion? Without those people you wouldn't have those ratings.

And I reckon they can do it well if they want. To me it's fairly true they are not good when writing original stories, but they are professionals. They could do it well if they wanted. They just don't want. It's like they are giving them A+ marks at school when they deserve much less. You get accustomed to that. But, take the example of Tyrion: he used to have much better dialogue. Now, it's like a shadow of what he was. if you could create original good dialogue for him, why can't you now do the same?

If the leaks are true, next season general arc is gonna be unwatchable. But I'll still watch it. For some reason, I felt in love with some characters and I still want to know about their story. It's a pitty there is too much effort in music, costumes, cgi, good actors in general (and some of them very good ones), months of shooting in many countries...and then I ask myself: "How can you come up with that general arc?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And the sad part is, they actually wasted an entire segment to show just this. They cut so much important stuff, with the excuse that time is limited, but they have time for St. Tyrion to sit around doing absolutely nothing, but telling lame jokes to a couple of recently emancipated slaves. :rolleyes:

It's a pitty. It was too sad to watch that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

 

no because Beric's moment had appeared many seasons before when they still were adapting the books and didn't take into account the premises I stated before.

LSH and Jon had to appear in the same season so if LSH had appeared, even if it had been logical because they had been mentioning Cat during all s6, and shocking, it would have minimised Jon's resurrection impact. And there is only one thing that is more important than shocking moments in general: The shocking moments of those four characters that deserve all the attention.

It doesn't matter that Beric's resurrection occurred earlier in the series. By then, the viewing audience knew that resurrection via fire priest/priestess was possible. Everyone knew that Jon was coming back because the show properly built up to that moment. As long as there's build up, it cannot be considered shock value. Besides, as I said earlier, the grotesque nature of LSH would have been the most shocking moment of all, so if shock was really the showrunners' goal, they wouldn't have been able to pass that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I don't understand why Jon's Snow resurrection is considered good storytelling. The only thing that changed after that was the fact that 

I wasn't talking about Jon's resurrection being good storytelling, but rather the build up to it. To be honest, I'm a little conflicted about Jon's resurrection, in both the show and future books. On one hand, that was a terrible point in the story for Jon to die, on the other, I find resurrections to be cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I wasn't talking about Jon's resurrection being good storytelling, but rather the build up to it. To be honest, I'm a little conflicted about Jon's resurrection, in both the show and future books. On one hand, that was a terrible point in the story for Jon to die, on the other, I find resurrections to be cheap.

Ok, I see your point

33 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

It doesn't matter that Beric's resurrection occurred earlier in the series. By then, the viewing audience knew that resurrection via fire priest/priestess was possible. Everyone knew that Jon was coming back because the show properly built up to that moment. As long as there's build up, it cannot be considered shock value. Besides, as I said earlier, the grotesque nature of LSH would have been the most shocking moment of all, so if shock was really the showrunners' goal, they wouldn't have been able to pass that up.

But there was also build up for LSH, in fact, I was shocked not to see her after all the teasing during the season. It was not until it finished that I realised they just care about the ending, and some characters, but not how to adapt the story (LSH will be crucial on Brienne's and Jaime's lives, probably Arya as well...)

As for the shocking things, I disagree with that. I think the main reason we had no LSH was that they had not enough epsodes and cared about reaching the ending=killing characters, not adding  more of them. If they had a contract of 10 seasons, they would have totally added her; probably after Jon Snow, so as not to spoil the audience with the resurrection of the so called protagonist.

And I think shock is not incompatible with foreshadowing, or build up. Many people realised Cersei was going to burn them all and it was still shocking, killing as many characters as possible. Same for Arya killing Walder Frey. The way they did it was shocking, and violent, and it was very clear she would do that once LSH was officially out and she was going to WF. Not everyone knew that, but eventhough, the scene is meant to be shocking. In fact, the last two finales are a recollection of high impact moments (shocking), unexpected, brutal or very different from the other episodes of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-They never mention the resurrection again, after he talks with Mel.

"They think you're some kind of God. The man who returned from the dead." "I'm not a God." 6x03

"Your eyes are still brown. That still you in there?" "I think so. Hold off on burning my body for now." 6x03

"You shouldn't be alive! It's not right!" "Neither was killing me." 6x03

"They killed me Edd, my own brothers!" 6x04

"We can't stay here, not after what happened." 6x04

"The crows killed him because he spoke for the free folk when no other southerners would. He died for us." 6x07

"If I do, if I fall, don't bring me back." "I'll have to try." "I'm ordering you not to bring me back." "I am not your servant Jon Snow." 6x09

"If the Lord didn't want me to bring you back, how did I bring you back? I have no power. Only what he gives me, and he gave me you." "Why?" "I don't know. Maybe your only needed for this small part of his plan and nothing else. Maybe he brought you here to die again." "What kind of god would do something like that?" "The one we've got." 6x09

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-He has not changed at all, which is quite inconsistent if we compare it to Beric's. Jon had died once only, but he had been dead longer than him, so it's normal to expect a change, like with LSH. I'm sure the books will take that aspect into consideration.

He was dead for two days. Beric has died, what, six times? Seven? Beric has come and gone waaaay more than Jon, so that argument is invalid. He should have changed like Lady Stoneheart? Well, Catelyn Stark basically lost her mind in the moments before her death, so when she came back to life, she was crazy. Jon Snow didn't have a psychotic break before he died, so he wouldn't come back psychotic. Physically, Catelyn Stark was stripped naked and thrown in a river in a warm environment for three days. Jon Snow was dead, above ground, in the coldest area in Westeros for two days. Bodies don't decompose when they're in arctic wastelands, at least not in two days. 

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

-He left the NW, but he executed the men that had killed him as the Lord Commander. Edd should have done it. If his watch has ended, he can't execute them because he is not longer a member of the NW.

He left the NW after he executed the traitors. This argument literally makes no sense. The scene shows him hanging the traitors, and then offically resigning and giving the cloak to Edd. His watch ended after he executed his killers. That is basic comprehension. 

3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

So he was resurrected in order to shock, shock, and shock the audience. It was totally insonsistent. I could forgive the detail he execeuted the members that killed him if there were some consequences in his character, but they didn't even did it well. On the other hand, with LSH, they had:

-mentioned her many times during the season: Walder Frey and his son, Edmure Tully....

-It would have been shocking because nobody would have expected that after Jon's resurrection.

-They could have even add a layer of detail in Jon's resurrection, to contrast his resurrection with Cat's. They could say LSH had been dead for so long (more than one year), whereas Jon not (and thus Jon has not changed a lot), but now that the only other person who has resurrected is Beric, Jon's resurrection is awkward in this aspect bc Beric actually changed. With three references they can say resurrection depends on: number of times, time that the person has been dead.....with two references: one having changed and the other being exactly the same it doesn't work. They should explain that, at least.

So the real reason LSH didn't appear was because Jon had to have all the protagonism and because they only had 15 episodesw left and didn't know how her story ends. Not because they didn't find it shocking enough, or not shocking in a coherent way. (in fact not cutting LSH would have been more coherent and Jon's resurrection was handled so badly).

They didn't bring Catelyn back because LSH is a character from the Walking Dead, not Game of Thrones. Lady Stoneheart is the definition of shock value, and if you don't see that, well then there's really no point in talking to you. Having a celebrated, serious actress come back to the show as a rotting corpse who just lurks around in caves like the fucking crypt keeper is not good television. Sure, it would have been a cool visual, but story wise, there is no point. 

And you are asking the show to comment on compare Jon's resurrection to Cat's, but Cat's didn't happen, so thinking that is necessary is silly because Cat didn't come back to life on the show. You are expecting the show to address things that didn't happen on the fucking show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, dsug said:

He left the NW after he executed the traitors. This argument literally makes no sense. The scene shows him hanging the traitors, and then offically resigning and giving the cloak to Edd. His watch ended after he executed his killers. That is basic comprehension. 

 

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.

He dies, his watch has ended, he resurrects, he was no longer a member, he executed the traitors.

Quote

They didn't bring Catelyn back because LSH is a character from the Walking Dead, not Game of Thrones. Lady Stoneheart is the definition of shock value, and if you don't see that, well then there's really no point in talking to you. Having a celebrated, serious actress come back to the show as a rotting corpse who just lurks around in caves like the fucking crypt keeper is not good television. Sure, it would have been a cool visual, but story wise, there is no point. 

And you are asking the show to comment on compare Jon's resurrection to Cat's, but Cat's didn't happen, so thinking that is necessary is silly because Cat didn't come back to life on the show. You are expecting the show to address things that didn't happen on the fucking show. 

I just want an adaptation. Based on ASOIAF, that is what the titles say....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

 

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.

He dies, his watch has ended, he resurrects, he was no longer a member, he executed the traitors.

I just want an adaptation. Based on ASOIAF, that is what the titles say....

no one elected a new lord commander in the 36 hours he was dead. he was still lord commander when he came back. he had his final act, then gave the cloak to edd. you are grasping at straws here and i am having trouble following your "logic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dsug said:

no one elected a new lord commander in the 36 hours he was dead. he was still lord commander when he came back. he had his final act, then gave the cloak to edd. you are grasping at straws here and i am having trouble following your "logic"

As I stated before, this is not main concern, but it clearly is an aspect they didn't take into account. If no one had elected him is because basically they didn't know he was dead. How do we know it was 36 hours after,, btw?

So, technically he can't be LC once he is dead, so he can't be LC when he resurrects, which is something that happens after being dead. So he can't be LC anymore, as he is not a member of the NW anymore. He can't execute anyone. They should elect a new LC to execute those people, or, considering the exceptional nature of Jon's case, he might elect the new one, but not execute them as such.

I remember when the show ended there was a thread that discussed that topic. I suggested that he could still be "an acting LC" but when he dies, he is free of his NW duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It seems to me that they do whatever they think will service their dudebros audience. In addition, they seem pretty much determined to avoid ASOIAF's fantasy elements as long as they aren't cool enough for the dudebros (dudebros like dragons and wrestler zombie while they don't like grown lady zombie).

So honestly the question that should be asked is will dudebros like this?

Will dudebros like Tyrion dealing with depression? No? Let's have him tell dick jokes all the time.

Will dudebros like Bran and Sansa more than Cersei and Jaime? No? Well let's reduce them to secondary "characters" (Bran - serving exposition only, Sansa - interchangeable, serving Ramsay's main arc), put Cersei and Jaime as the most important characters along with Tyrion, Jon and Dany.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, farerb said:

It seems to me that they do whatever they think will service their dudebros audience. In addition, they seem pretty much determined to avoid ASOIAF's fantasy elements as long as they aren't cool enough for the dudebros (dudebros like dragons and wrestler zombie while they don't like grown lady zombie).

So honestly the question that should be asked is will dudebros like this?

Will dudebros like Tyrion dealing with depression? No? Let's have him tell dick jokes all the time.

Will dudebros like Bran and Sansa more than Cersei and Jaime? No? Well let's reduce them to secondary "characters" (Bran - serving exposition only, Sansa - interchangeable, serving Ramsay's main arc), put Cersei and Jaime as the most important characters along with Tyrion, Jon and Dany.

 

Yes, I agree with what you say, except the fact that IMHO Jaime is not an important character for them. He is only a part of Cersei's arc. It doesn't matter if he does things that are out of character or acts like if he was not intelligent enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 6:04 PM, Darkstream said:

And the sad part is, they actually wasted an entire segment to show just this. They cut so much important stuff, with the excuse that time is limited, but they have time for St. Tyrion to sit around doing absolutely nothing, but telling lame jokes to a couple of recently emancipated slaves. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and the scene last season where a man puts his finger in another man's arsehole and then sniffs is a perfect example of D&D's skill in storytelling. As you said, they most likely didn't bother to read past the Red Wedding. They prolly had interns summarize AFFC and ADWD for them. Didn't they get the idea to use Olly to betray Jon from some intern? What a shame that dumb and dumber will finish this perversion that they call an adaptation before GRRM finishes his story and all the show fans will believe the distortions in the show to be canon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically (and to avoid some of the sour grapes here) it probably has more to do with how integral something is to the main story weighed against how many resources need to allocated to it. 

 

Faegon for instance requires hiring a while set of actors a new location and groundwork to forshadow it. That's a lot of time and money if he's just an obstacle that Dany overcomes and reveals as a fraud on route to gaining her army. 

Likewise they could have spent all that time and money on Brienne's travels, which was a lot of character building, or they could just put her on the back burner in an already ongoing storyline in the North. 

Usually you can kinda trace where and why things are cut. Like Sansa probably ends up in a similar position with Jon in the North. This way just got rid of the Vale portion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...