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

[teej6]

5 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

That's not how I interpreted his character. In the prologue chapter, I remember him being a jerk to Cressen and completely brushing off his death. He barely has any scenes with Shireen, and I don't remember a single one with him acting as a caring father. As for Renly, on the surface, he seemed to brush off his death, too. I know there were long silences between him talking about his brother, which one could interpret as remorse, but all I'll say is that there such a thing as too subtle. In the show, Stannis was horrified at how he murdered his brother in the season 2 finale. Show Stannis shows a lot more emotion than Book Stannis, and I, therefore, find him to be more human.

I understand Stannis's motives perfectly in the show and didn't find him to be inconsistent at all. In fact, I found him to be a very tragic figure.

 

Well then you and I have very different interpretations of Stannis in the books and the show. I came to understand and like book Stannis a lot but show Stannis was just a pile of crap to me. The actor who played Stannis (Stephen Dillane, who's a terrific actor btw) also stated in a recent interview that he did not understand the character of Stannis, just like may of us viewers. 

[StepStark]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

They may have been referring to Shireen's burning in general. It may happen differently in the books.

It will definitely happen differently in the books, but it's still going to be Stannis who'll sacrifice her. Or it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice. And yes, D&D were talking about Stannis burning her in the books too.

[lancerman]

33 minutes ago, StepStark said:

You're barking at the wrong tree. It's not me who's saying that Tyrells are unimportant. They aren't important by your logic. Just to remind you, you said that Aegon is probably not important and that he's just an obstacle for Dany. I don't know how did you came to that conclusion, but if that's what you're thinking, then you also must think that Tyrells were just an obstacle for Cersei to take the throne. Because, the story could come to the exact same spot without Tyrells. Even the resolution of what you call the primary plot in season 2 could have been achieved without Tyrells, because in D&D's universe, where numbers don't add up anyway, Tywin's army could have been strong enough to crush Stannis' army on its own.

The same goes for Dorne and Daario too. And a lot of other characters. LOL, by your logic even Boltons were just an obstacle for Jon to reclaim Winterfell, so they could have been merged with Freys which would definitely save money and time.

All in all, I'm talking about the lack of a criteria, because eventually one can either have criteria or defend D&D.

 

Aegon has done nothing besides exist so far. Might literally meet Dany once and be revealed as a fake. And exists almost entirely separate from the rest of the plot. If you take Aegon/Griff out, all it means is Tyrion has one less stop on his way to Essos.

Darrio doesn't exist outside of Dany's plot. There's no advantage to cutting him.

The Tyrell's were a crucial plot point in nearly every season and were the catalyst for the King's Landing plot in season 5 and 6. And were the key to resolving the plot to season 2.

If you take the Tyrell's out, Renly has no army, Blackwater has no resolution or goes completely the other way, there is no reason for the High Sparrow and Cersie plot, and Dany's forces loose the biggest portion of her new army. 

By your logic the Lannister, Starks, and Targaryens are the only houses that need to exist. 

We're talking about resources and how they are used. Cutting Darrio does nothing. Cutting the Tyrell's obliterates King's Landing's plot for no reason. It's not like we saw much of High Garden. It was the 4 main Tyrell's hanging around King's Landing. No advsntage to cutting them.

Aegon hasn't impacted any main plot yet, requires his own location and cast. It's easier and cheaper to find a work around that's already established, unless he becomes absolutely crucial. 

[teej6]

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

I agree that the burning of Shireen was wrong on many levels, but I don't think that even Stannis' scene where he hugs her is any different. I was turned off precisely by the blatant obviousness of their intention to suddenly portray Stannis as a loving father. Again, Martin did the same thing in a hugely better way, when in Theon's chapter in TWOW Stannis orders his knights to continue fighting even if he dies, because they'll have a duty to Shireen. With just one carefully placed sentence Martin accomplished more than D&D with that entire scene, because he showed that for Stannis the concept of duty is not something he associates only with his own personal needs. Compare that to the show and his stupid lines from there, like "I don't want to be a page in someone else's history book".

Exactly! One minute ShowStannis is a self-centered narcissist, the next minute he's a doting father, and the next minute he's burning his only child in order to get good weather. They couldn't decide what to do with Stannis. And that scene with him and Shireen before he burns her was what I call bad storytelling -- dumb & dumber shoehorned that scene in there to get more shock value when he burns her. 

[Dragon in the North]

6 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Well then you and I have very different interpretations of Stannis in the books and the show. I came to understand and like book Stannis a lot but show Stannis was just a pile of crap to me. The actor who played Stannis (Stephen Dillane, who's a terrific actor btw) also stated in a recent interview that he did not understand the character of Stannis, just like may of us viewers. 

Maybe my opinion will change on a reread, but my first impression of Books Stannis was meh. I had no problem understanding Show Stannis's motivations.

[teej6]

16 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

They may have been referring to Shireen's burning in general. It may happen differently in the books.

Nope. They specifically state that GRRM told them that Stannis (not Mel or anyone else) would sacrifice Shireen, which pissed off a lot of people (including GRRM's editor IIRC) for giving it away. Now GRRM may write it differently just to get even with these two bozos, who knows. 

[Dragon in the North]

6 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Nope. They specifically state that GRRM told them that Stannis (not Mel or anyone else) would sacrifice Shireen, which pissed off a lot of people (including GRRM's editor IIRC) for giving it away. Now GRRM may write it differently just to get even with these two bozos, who knows. 

“When George first told us about this,” David Benioff recounts, “It was one of those moments when I remember looking at Dan, and I was just like, “God, that’s so horrible — and so good in a story sense, because it all comes together.”

This was the only quote I can find. It's vague, and I think it's possible they might only mean Shireen's burning. Do know of another quote where they're more specific? 

[teej6]

3 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

“When George first told us about this,” David Benioff recounts, “It was one of those moments when I remember looking at Dan, and I was just like, “God, that’s so horrible — and so good in a story sense, because it all comes together.”

This was the only quote I can find. It's vague, and I think it's possible they might only mean Shireen's burning. Do know of another quote where they're more specific? 

That's the one. But considering that they are talking about Stannis burning Shireen, I think it implies quite explicitly that GRRM intends to have Stannis agree to burn Shireen. 

[Dragon in the North]

Just now, teej6 said:

That's the one. But considering that they are talking about Stannis burning Shireen, I think it implies quite explicitly that GRRM intends to have Stannis burn Shireen. 

I wouldn't say it's definitive, but I suppose we'll find out sooner or later when Winds is released.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Can't have Stannis discussion without me . As some have pointed out Stannis can't lose to Bolton and burn Shireen so either the burning is D&D fiction or Battle of the Bastards is an seeing as how that plot went the more likely explanation is that BOTB is made up. Also it's subtle but I can't let go off is how the politics of the North make no sense in the show. Take for example Smalljon, according to his motivations in the show he has a million better reasons to show up at CB back in S5 an hand Rickon over to Stannis. Also like the books Deepwood Motte is under siege during S5 according to shows timeline so why doesn't Jon tell Stannis about it like the books? Jon was shown getting all these letters from Northern Lords after becoming LC and later Davos gives Jon this speech after he turns down Stannis about how he can't sit on the sidelines and his vows do line up with helping due to "shield that guards the realms of me/as long as the Boltons rule the North suffers" that's a perfect set up for Jon to tell Stannis to attack Deepwood to win Northern support. An that's not even covering Roose feering the Northern lords will rebel to the point of committing treason with Sansa or Wyman/the Northern lord who's parents Ramsay killed that little lord Mormont called out for sitting on the sidelines for no reason

[teej6]

32 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Can't have Stannis discussion without me . As some have pointed out Stannis can't lose to Bolton and burn Shireen so either the burning is D&D fiction or Battle of the Bastards is an seeing as how that plot went the more likely explanation is that BOTB is made up. Also it's subtle but I can't let go off is how the politics of the North make no sense in the show. Take for example Smalljon, according to his motivations in the show he has a million better reasons to show up at CB back in S5 an hand Rickon over to Stannis. Also like the books Deepwood Motte is under siege during S5 according to shows timeline so why doesn't Jon tell Stannis about it like the books? Jon was shown getting all these letters from Northern Lords after becoming LC and later Davos gives Jon this speech after he turns down Stannis about how he can't sit on the sidelines and his vows do line up with helping due to "shield that guards the realms of me/as long as the Boltons rule the North suffers" that's a perfect set up for Jon to tell Stannis to attack Deepwood to win Northern support. An that's not even covering Wyman or the Nothern lord who's parents Ramsay killed that little lord Mormont called out 

On the show, characters and their motives keep changing on a whim. Sansa is darkSansa, all cunning and clever one minute, the next minute she's back to being naive and stupid, then again she returns to plotting. It's like she's got split personality of something. Show Jon is told by Sam that Bran is still alive but he still accepts the title of King in the North when offered. What does that make Jon? On the other hand, in the books he believes Bran and Rickon to be dead and if he's ever offered Winterfell again, he will not seem like a complete jerk if he accepts. 

Yeah destroying the entire Northern storyline was a travesty. Instead of Manderly's epic North Remembers speech we have a frail old serving woman come and tell Sansa the North remembers. 

[StepStark]

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

Aegon has done nothing besides exist so far. Might literally meet Dany once and be revealed as a fake. And exists almost entirely separate from the rest of the plot. If you take Aegon/Griff out, all it means is Tyrion has one less stop on his way to Essos.

Darrio doesn't exist outside of Dany's plot. There's no advantage to cutting him.

The Tyrell's were a crucial plot point in nearly every season and were the catalyst for the King's Landing plot in season 5 and 6. And were the key to resolving the plot to season 2.

If you take the Tyrell's out, Renly has no army, Blackwater has no resolution or goes completely the other way, there is no reason for the High Sparrow and Cersie plot, and Dany's forces loose the biggest portion of her new army. 

You're missing my point again. Of course that Tyrells are important for the story, but so are Tullys, and yet they were cut completely from every season but 3rd and 6th (and in those two seasons they were written horribly - Edmure is a moron, and Blackfish has the most intuitive bladder ever). Because of that, Cat who is among the most important characters in the books was turned into a third-rate character in the show, to the point that even someone like Shae had more screen time than her. So what I'm saying is that they could have cut Tyrells in a similar way and fanboys would still be okay with it. When was the last time a D&D fanboy criticized the Tullys' treatment in the show? Do you have a problem with the Tullys' treatment in the show? I wouldn't say that you do, and I'm guessing that you'd feel the same if Tyrells got the same treatment by D&D.

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

By your logic the Lannister, Starks, and Targaryens are the only houses that need to exist. 

We're talking about resources and how they are used. Cutting Darrio does nothing. Cutting the Tyrell's obliterates King's Landing's plot for no reason. It's not like we saw much of High Garden. It was the 4 main Tyrell's hanging around King's Landing. No advsntage to cutting them.

No, by your logic Lannisters, Starks and Targaryens are the only houses that need to exist. You're the one saying that cutting characters out is completely okay if it saves money and time and main points of the story are still there. Just like D&D bypassed Tullys for so long, they could just as easily bypass Tyrells and still have Stannis defeated at KL, Joff poisoned, Cersei imprisoned by Sparrows and finally Cersei on the throne. Yes, it would be contrived and sometimes outright bizarre, but so was the Riverlands storyline because of the treatment of Tullys and yet fanboys aren't complaining because main plot points are still there, right?

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

Aegon hasn't impacted any main plot yet, requires his own location and cast. It's easier and cheaper to find a work around that's already established, unless he becomes absolutely crucial. 

If his importance to the story is just to be an obstacle for Dany, then the decision to cut him wasn't an unreasonable one if they really lacked money and time. But, how come they're never lacking time and money for prostitutes and sex scenes, or for showing Ramsay's cruelty over and over again? But more importantly, Aegon seems to be more important than that. I don't think that John Connington became a POV character just because. Aegon subplot got a significant portion of attention in ADWD and Martin kept it in even when some things had to be removed from ADWD and left for later books. All of that suggests that Aegon is not going to be just an expandable obstacle for Dany.

[JonSnowed]

D&D have said they will explain their decisions once the show has ended, they also stated last year they are remaining true to the source material and in some cases they simply change the timelines to fit everything in I guess see the Iron born storyline moving to Season 6 which focused more on material from Winds of Winter.

If you look at the early seasons then the first one is remarkably close to the first book, season 2 does a very good job of covering a huge book, they make some changes to cut stuff simply because it won't all fit on screen (Moonboy etc) and I feel it works better than the book. Season 3-4 they take a little creative liberty. Season five covers the broad beats but the two books are huge and slow moving so I feel they tried to cut as uch as they could to fit into ten hours and still keep the big beats (Jon, Cersei, Tyrions journey etc).

[Rachel of Oldstones]

Thanks to everyone who replied (except the smartass replies;p). 

One of the best examples of a change the show made I cannot understand is, how TV show Euron has two normal eyes. No smiling eyes, no, eye patch or anything! 

I can't think of a single reason they'd need to omit that! 

I'm watching season 6 The Door.... 

 

[Lady Sansa's Direwolf]

D&D have taken the path of least budget, and many story lines that we as readers love dearly (Lady Stoneheart). While it stinks, and the changes have not all been rational or liked (Barristan Selmy, Jeyne Poole), they have condensed the magnum opus into approximately 75 hours worth of television. Some things had to go or suffer (Stannis). 

Will Martin change his outlines? I can't say. I'd be highly pissed at some of the moments which we have seen only through D&D's eyes, but then GRRM can only blame himself. His writing pace and television are incompatible. To paraphrase, "He knew the job was dangerous when he took it."

We can only wait for Winds to be released to truly be able to measure if their series and GRRM's cover the same territory in vastly different ways.

[StepStark]

20 hours ago, Lady Sansa's Direwolf said:

D&D have taken the path of least budget, and many story lines that we as readers love dearly (Lady Stoneheart). While it stinks, and the changes have not all been rational or liked (Barristan Selmy, Jeyne Poole), they have condensed the magnum opus into approximately 75 hours worth of television. Some things had to go or suffer (Stannis). 

Not really. They actually expanded quite a few storylines (Ramsay, Tyrells, Cersei, Tywin, Shae, Sons of the Harpy, Ygritte, Gilly, Bronn), and even added few of their own (Ros, Locke, Talisa), and all of that was of course done on the expense of the main storylines from the books that were therefore shorthanded. Stannis and Cat are just the most obvious examples, but in reality all of the main characters from the books were shorthanded in the show, while many of the side characters were given much more screen time in the show. That is not taking the path of least budget. That is restructuring of the basic story, only not because of the budget issues but because of D&D's personal preferences.

21 hours ago, Lady Sansa's Direwolf said:

We can only wait for Winds to be released to truly be able to measure if their series and GRRM's cover the same territory in vastly different ways.

I don't see how an adaptation can cover the same territory in a vastly different way. If in some adaptation Macbeth conspires not with his wife but with his secret lover, then it's hardly "Macbeth" any more even if everything ends with protagonist's demise. If in some adaptation of LOTR Frodo is not traveling with Sam but with some Hobbit prostitute, it is hardly LOTR any more, even if it still ends with the ring being destroyed. In storytelling, ways are the territory.

[Queen of Procrastination]

On 5.3.2017 at 8:34 AM, Rachel of Oldstones said:

Thanks to everyone who replied (except the smartass replies;p). 

One of the best examples of a change the show made I cannot understand is, how TV show Euron has two normal eyes. No smiling eyes, no, eye patch or anything! 

I can't think of a single reason they'd need to omit that! 

I'm watching season 6 The Door.... 

 

I haven't listened to the audio commentary for Season 6, but according to this WIC net article Euron doesn't have an eyepatch on the show, because D&D thought that it was a silly idea.

http://winteriscoming.net/2016/12/26/we-review-all-the-commentaries-on-the-game-of-thrones-season-6-home-boxset/3/

[The Exiled Septa]

well, i haven't any concrete proofs but my guess is that they cut and change people and storylines because of the time pressure and the cost.

If they had cast Aegon they would have had to cast another 3-10 characters ( the people that Aegon interacts with on the books)  and to shoot in new places too.Do you know what that means??Money time and more money and more time.I think that's the reason they are cutting so much.If they could I'm sure they would have included all those characters that we now miss(Aegon,Arrianna,etc)