Feologild

What would you change about the show?

175 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, farm_ecology said:

I hate this lazy defence of bad decisions by the show as just being book purists nitpicking.

 

Most of us that take issue with parts of the adaptation are well aware that changes are needed to make the show work. Plots had to be removed and characters removed, but the biggest issues we have are when plots and characters are included but butchered for no good reason..

The problem is that the adaptation worked well to start, they had complex plots and characters, and slimmed it down while keeping the general feel. Later they dropped the complexity for simplicity and fantasy tropes. This was not the grey world we fell in love with in the show or the books.

 

For example, they have reduces pretty much everything to goodies and baddies at this point. The north has descended into a bunch of evil psychopaths who have unflinching loyality to a maniac. Meanwhile the iron islands plot has just become a joke, with a series of great scenes just literally being two lines of "I will build a big fleet" and "yeah, but I will build a bigger one!", its just a joke.

Previously grey characters have just become black and white, and there is no legitimate reason they could not have spent the same amount of time keeping the murky waters they did so well in the first few seasons.

 

If I would change one thing i would have been have all the  chekov guns in the northern plot to have led somewhere. Be it Johns comment about Bolton's troops loyalty, or the tactical planning before the battle of bastards. Instead it was good v evil as deus ex machina. God forbid a main character win for their own wit rather than divine intervention.

You missed my point. I am not saying that the show is flawless.  I would like to discuss the weaknesses of the show. But based on the show as its own. Not this non-stop comparisson to the book.

P.S. the first reply has not work somehow. Sorry. 

Edited by T and A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 06/02/2017 at 8:15 AM, Dragon in the North said:

Adaptation doesn't mean creating a carbon copy of the source material. It means taking elements from the source material and changing them to fit into the appropriate medium. It could be many elements, or only a few. Either way, GOT will always be an adaptation of ASOIAF.

As always, you take the same, non applicable, blind defense of the show by taking legitimate complaints about how the show is being adapted, and attribute it to book purist being upset about any changes to the source material. When in fact, every single person I have seen with these complaints, fully acknowledge the need for certain changes.

The issue that most of us have with the changes in the show has nothing to do with it not being a carbon copy of the books. The changes that d$d decide to make are illogical, assanine, and have nothing to do with medium limitations.

GOT is a butchery and mockery of ASOIAF, disrespecting the brilliant source material in favor of low brow spectacle and fan service.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

As always, you take the same, non applicable, blind defense of the show. You constantly take legitimate complaints about how the show is being adapted, and attribute it to book purist being upset about any changes to the source material. When in fact, every single person I have seen with these complaints, fully acknowledge the need for certain changes.

The issue that most of us have with the changes in the show has nothing to do with it not being a carbon copy of the books. The changes that d$d decide to make are illogical, assanine, and have nothing to do with medium limitations.

GOT is a butchery and mockery of ASOIAF, disrespecting the brilliant source material in favor of low brow spectacle and fan service.

The first three books were brilliant. The last two, barely mediocre. Everyone that I know, aknowledges this. So be carefull when you speak about butchery or mockery.

Edited by T and A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T and A said:

The first three books were brilliant. The last two, barely mediocre. 

Perhaps in your opinion. In my opinion, they are as good, if not better than the first three. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darkstream said:

Perhaps in your opinion. In my opinion, they are as good, if not better than the first three. 

Indeed. In my opinion. Just like others people opinion about the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T and A said:

Indeed. In my opinion. Just like others people opinion about the show.

The difference with the majority of complaints regarding books versus show is that complaints about the show are based on d$d's abilities to write a story that adherse to basic fundamentals of story telling. Complaints about the last two books are based on subjective preferences, which is fine, different strokes for different folks, but the quality of writing is still present.

Share this post


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

The difference with the majority of complaints regarding books versus show is that complaints about the show are based on d$d's abilities to write a story that adherse to basic fundamentals of story telling. Complaints about the last two books are based on subjective preferences, which is fine, different strokes for different folks, but the quality of writing is still present.

There are also huge critics about the writing and story telling about the last two books. But I don't want to go off-topic here. So I don't want to go further on that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, T and A said:

There are also huge critics about the writing and story telling about the last two books. But I don't want to go off-topic here. So I don't want to go further on that matter. 

Fair enough. I won't go so far as to say that there are no flaws with the last two books, and some of the complaints are legitimate, or at least debatable until we see how the rest of the story ends. However, a vast portion of the complaints, and the poor reception that they received, is due to personal preference and favorite characters not being focused on.

But I digress, perhaps another time, in a more suitable thread.

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Fair enough. I won't go so far as to say that there are no flaws with the last two books, and some of the complaints are legitimate, or at least debatable until we see how the rest of the story ends. However, a vast portion of the complaints, and the poor reception that they received, is due to personal preference and favorite characters not being focused on.

But I digress, perhaps another time, in a more suitable thread.

:cheers:

Quote

 

Spoiler

 

We sure can agree on that. Cheers :D (I don't know how to do the beer emoticon :unsure:)

Share this post


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

As always, you take the same, non applicable, blind defense of the show. You constantly take legitimate complaints about how the show is being adapted, and attribute it to book purist being upset about any changes to the source material. When in fact, every single person I have seen with these complaints, fully acknowledge the need for certain changes.

The issue that most of us have with the changes in the show has nothing to do with it not being a carbon copy of the books. The changes that d$d decide to make are illogical, assanine, and have nothing to do with medium limitations.

GOT is a butchery and mockery of ASOIAF, disrespecting the brilliant source material in favor of low brow spectacle and fan service.

And I will always respect people's opinions about the show and do not attribute their opinions as "book purists being upset about any changes to the source material." I'm simply stating the fact that GOT will always be an adaptation of ASOIAF. It's not a fact that it is a faithful adaptation. It is not a fact that it is a good adaptation. Those are opinions. But it is an adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

And I will always respect people's opinions about the show and do not attribute their opinions as "book purists being upset about any changes to the source material." I'm simply stating the fact that GOT will always be an adaptation of ASOIAF. It's not a fact that it is a faithful adaptation. It is not a fact that it is a good adaptation. Those are opinions. But it is an adaptation.

Ok, I can respect that, and I agree. Thanks for clarifying. :cheers:

...

@T and A to make the beer emoticon, you just write cheers between two colons. Like so :text:

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic, good writing and characterization are book-only. By saying you want all that in the show you are basically a book purist. Because you want the show to be just like the books. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5.3.2017 at 5:15 PM, Pyat>Daenerys said:

Logic, good writing and characterization are book-only. By saying you want all that in the show you are basically a book purist. Because you want the show to be just like the books. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

No one is saying that. Where exactly did you get that? Can you quote someone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/03/2017 at 9:15 AM, Pyat>Daenerys said:

Logic, good writing and characterization are book-only. By saying you want all that in the show you are basically a book purist. Because you want the show to be just like the books. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

What does that even mean? Are you saying that anything produced in the medium of television is incapable of containing said elements? If so, that is a ludicrous assertion.

If wanting a television show to have logic, good writing and characterization, means you are a book purist, then by all means label me as one. I will wear that badge with honor.

Honestly, unless I am missing something here, what you are saying makes no sense at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

What does that even mean? Are you saying that anything produced in the medium of television is incapable of containing said elements? If so, that is a ludicrous assertion.

If wanting a television show to have logic, good writing and characterization, means you are a book purist, then by all means label me as one. I will wear that badge with honor.

Honestly, unless I am missing something here, what you are saying makes no sense at all.

 

I second that. 

Share this post


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

What does that even mean? Are you saying that anything produced in the medium of television is incapable of containing said elements? If so, that is a ludicrous assertion.

If wanting a television show to have logic, good writing and characterization, means you are a book purist, then by all means label me as one. I will wear that badge with honor.

Honestly, unless I am missing something here, what you are saying makes no sense at all.

 

I'm almost positive he was being sarcastic, but, like T and A, I'm not sure who he's directing his post to. No one said anything like that.

Share this post


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

I'm almost positive he was being sarcastic, but, like T and A, I'm not sure who he's directing his post to. No one said anything like that.

Heh, yeah I'm going to have to agree with you. I kinda realized that after the fact. Nobody ever said I was the quickest crayon in the box. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10. 3. 2017 at 1:16 AM, Darkstream said:

What does that even mean? Are you saying that anything produced in the medium of television is incapable of containing said elements? If so, that is a ludicrous assertion.

If wanting a television show to have logic, good writing and characterization, means you are a book purist, then by all means label me as one. I will wear that badge with honor.

Honestly, unless I am missing something here, what you are saying makes no sense at all.

 

That was sarcasm. Its not just this board, I have seen this elsewhere. Where if you say something negative about the show you ahve people telling you you are a book purist and nitpicking. Then they proceed to kindly explain how its impossible for the show to be the same as the books, and how changes needed to be made as if this wasn't basic common sense. 

Point being, calling someone a book purist or how he wants things changed to be like in the books is terrible argumentation. The show is perfectly bad on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Pyat>Daenerys said:

That was sarcasm. Its not just this board, I have seen this elsewhere. Where if you say something negative about the show you ahve people telling you you are a book purist and nitpicking. Then they proceed to kindly explain how its impossible for the show to be the same as the books, and how changes needed to be made as if this wasn't basic common sense. 

Point being, calling someone a book purist or how he wants things changed to be like in the books is terrible argumentation. The show is perfectly bad on its own.

Again, nobody said here anything like that. You have brought zero arguments to prove your accusations, you claim things nobody is saying and you contribute to this topic like a polar bear contributes to quantum mechanics. 

Edited by T and A

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