[Book & TV Spoilers] What was left out, and what was left in

[Tywin's bastard]

I can understand them leaving some things out. But the ones I mentioned are specifically important to character arcs or future stories in the series. And they could so easily be added. i think that's the point I'm trying to make. I don't expect a word-for-word adaptation, and I don't mind them adding and subtracting stuff, but there's so much signature stuff they're leaving out that could easily be added. That's what concerns me most.

The problems become clearer when you notice that many of the people wishing that things had been added are wishing for different things.

It would only require a few lines of dialogue. If you dumped a largely unnecessary scene like Jamie and Jon by the forge, and include a scene about how the family is dealing with Bran's fall, you could easily get all of that across. But I guess showing Jamie being a prick is more important that the Starks mourning over Bran and exploring the strange relationship they have with their wolves. *shrug*

Jaime will be a more important character in the show than he is in the first book. Also a meeting between him and Jon, that could have taken place in the book but was never shown, is intriguing to me. It gives me something new, instead of just the same thing I've already read. As for the family dealing with Bran's death, I think that comes across well for many of them without them having to state it too clearly. You can't tell everything too clearly or the show will look like it doesn't think the viewers are very bright. The connection with the wolves is most important for Bran and that can very well be explained more further on. There's nothing forcing them to explain things in the exact same order that the book does.

From page 213 of the paperback:

"Thank you, my lord of Lannister." He pulled off his glove and offered his bare hand. "Friend."

Tyrion found himself oddly touched. "Most of my kin are bastards," he said with a wry smile, "but you're the first I've had to friend." He pulled a glove off with his teeth and clasped Snow by the hand, flesh against flesh. The boy's grip was firm and strong.

Yes, Jon is better friends with Sam, and Grenn, and Pyp, etc. But make no mistake, he IS friends with Tyrion as well, and its because the dwarf gave him such good council. And the lessons Tyrion gave Jon help form him into the man he becomes. That's why I'd like to see their scenes together stick closer to what they are in the book, because they will not be together again for a long, long time.

I think there's a lot of difference in calling someone friend like that (which is basically a sign of respect and understanding) and "deep friendship" as you described it. As for Tyrion's council, we have heard Jon say that no one told him the truth but him (we don't see Tyrion but it's obvious that he's talking to him) and that Tyrion gives more advice than he does in the book so the relationship that forms between them will most likely be very clear to the audience. I don't think the relationship hangs on any one line of dialog, it's better written than that.

And I don't expect a word-for-word adaptation, but I expect them to know what fans want to see and work it into the show. A lot of the stuff they are leaving out is stuff that would make fans of the books squeeeeeeee. So its just odd that they're leaving so much of it out in favor of other things that aren't necessary.

What fans want differs a lot. If they can get George happy that's a bigger sign of that they have succeeded than that any individual fan (including me) likes or dislikes it. Not least since George knows more than most fans about adapting things to TV. And again, what's not necessary to you can be that to others. We've obviously not seen eye to eye on the exact importance of various lines from the book. Why people differ in that is not easy to understand, we can only accept that it's so. Some people want the show to be like a photography of the original, others want it to be like a stylized painting.

And don't forget that D&D are big fans of the books themselves, even impressing George with their knowledge about the series. They probably know the story just as well as you or I, if not better.

Here's the thing though - I'm fine with the scene as well because its almost VERBATUM from the book, down to the breakfast order. So why can't they do that with other scenes when it can be done just as easily? That's my point. You could easily cut Tyrion ordering breakfast and slip in another quick scene about the direwolves, let's say, and still get across the same information. But they chose to stick to the book exactly for that scene and not others. Why? I don't mind hearing Tyrion asking for burned bacon, but when so much other stuff is left out for no good reason, it makes me wonder where the writer's priorities lie.

There are lots of things to take into consideration when making a script (no doubt a good deal that I don't even know about) but for your exact example, cutting 10-15 seconds of Tyrion walking to his family and instead inserting a talking scene with detailed information is the kind of thing that would make the show seemed more rushed than it already is. And an entire scene that just lasts 10 seconds will make it look jerky.

I disagree. I think the quality would have been much better the more information and backstory they could have put in. I do enjoy the show, but not as much as I would if they could hit all the right beats to it.

But now you are just talking about giving information and that's what I stated by saying keeping to the spirit of the original. What I said is not something that's good to do is to rip all scenes exactly from the book with the same dialog because books and TV does not play by the same rules and some scenes, or information, is best told in different ways in the two mediums.

I've adapted books and stories for screenplays before, so I'm aware of what goes into it. Keep in mind, I don't mind changes and new additions. But I do mind editing out awesome stuff from the book that could easily be in the show. See my point? Its not enough to ruin the show, but it is enough to annoy a fan of the books. Just saying.

I know what you mean but as someone that hasn't adapted any books for screenplays I still think you've given several examples that would press an already rushed episode over the limit where it becomes clumsy storytelling. Some things are also done from that you are set in that information must be told in the same order as in the book, instead of waiting to see if they chose to spread it out differently in the show.

Not sure what scene you're referring to, but its easy to praise a new scene because there's nothing to be disappointed by from it. The direwolf scene was horribly handled, and they're making Jon far to sullen. Tyrion's scenes are changed too much for my liking, especially when he's with Jon. But whatever, the show is still good. I just would like to see them stick a little closer to the book in the details. If a show like LOST can layer in all kinds of easter eggs and subtlety I'm sure this show can do that because it's far better than LOST.

Also, keep in mind the purpose of this thread is to highlight what was different from the books to the episode, not a true critique of the episode. So you can argue with me about the quality of the show, but you can't argue over what they decided to leave in and leave out. :-)

They didn't say what scene it was, although my guess is that it's Robert and Cersei talking alone. As for Tyrion, I think he was just as he is in the book with Jon in the forest. Part mocking, part educating but thoroughly honest.

And LOST is a bad comparison because that was written directly for TV and the details could be created exactly for that medium. GoT does not have less intricate details (I'd say the contrary given how much they hint to the books without being obvious about it) and Lost definitely is far more shallow than the ASOIAF book series (despite having an average of 20 episodes per season). I've of course only seen two episodes of GoT but this far I think it's better than Lost was when it started.

Other than that I disagree with things that Tyrion isn't saying enough to Jon (as I think he seems to say more in the show than in the book given the previews) I haven't disagreed on that things are left out. I've just said that I don't think all those things are as crucial to the plot as you think, plus that I have explained a different way to look at it in order to more easily enjoy it. It's not easy to change your views but it's still worth discussing in my opinion.

And from another post:

I'm pretty sure we did. In the book Jon is far less mopey than he is in the show. He has a brooding nature, but we have some chapters of him at Winterfell having fun, smiling, interacting with his siblings, playing with ghost, etc. It seems all he does in the show is act angry, practice his swordplay, and act all mopey. I'd like more than a 1-note Jon Snow.

In the show we see him laughing with Robb when they teach Bran how to shoot a bow, he's talking to Arya, Bran, Robb and Benjen (and he's not angry at any of them) and so on. I agree with the other poster that they are portraying him well and your description of all he does in the show is obviously wrong.

[Cold Pie]

I hated the exclusion of the Three Eyed Crow and the naming of Summer. No good reason to leave either of those out, other than to dumb things down.

I was a bit disappointed of the naming, but I do understand why they didn't film the Three Eyed Crow. They will probably speak of the crow later on and Bran will tell Luwin or someone about his dream, I think that will be both easier and better for a television adaption. If they do leave out the crow (although I don't believe they will), I will be very disappointed.

[Kaitscralt]

Also a meeting between him and Jon' date=' that could have taken place in the book but was never shown, is intriguing to me. It gives me something new, instead of just the same thing I've already read.[/quote']

This is exactly the way I feel about it.

Don't you think it would have been cheesy, indeed kind of laughable, if the last line of the episode was Bran saying "Your name is Summer." We aren't in his head like the books -- we don't know that choosing a name has been frustrating him, or that Summer is important because of the dreams connections to winter. Non-readers right now are itching for the next episode because 1) Bran seems strangely connected to the death of a wolf and more importantly 2) Bran might have something to say about Jaime and Cersei. The naming just isn't important in the show, and should be done at the next episode. It was definitely the right move to postpone it.

I disagree. In the books we are told he is on the verge of crying once or twice every chapter for very small reasons. He broods just as much about being a bastard and there is the feast which is yet another mopey scene that we did not see in the show. We see the archery stuff and more joking with Arya in the show, and in the novel we only read more of his thoughts which just make it seem like he is happier. When you're watching the show, even if he looks angsty, there is no reason he cannot be thinking the things he is in the book. So I think it's a fair balance and works just fine.

[Solmyr]

Non-readers right now are itching for the next episode because 1) Bran seems strangely connected to the death of a wolf and more importantly 2) Bran might have something to say about Jaime and Cersei. The naming just isn't important in the show, and should be done at the next episode. It was definitely the right move to postpone it.

And this is exactly what the problem is. So far the show is presenting Bran in a totally misleading manner. Unless they bring in the 3-eyed-crow part of the story very soon, Bran will become the most boring and obsolete character of the TV series for a long time ahead. The non-readers will never understand why he matters for the story and will have no reason to expect any feats of strength from him.

I wish to believe that a character of Bran's scale would serve a greater purpose than making viewers anxious between ep1, 2 and 3.

P.S. Take Arya as a comparison - the director has gone to great lengths to build her portrait as it should be. The scenes with her are very accurate and I've talked to several friends, who are non-readers - they all love her and perceive her the same way she is portrayed in the books.

The simple reason why one of the children takes up so much screen time and effort is obvious - Arya plays a major part in seasons 1, 2 and 3, whereas Bran plays little-no role, if you exclude the green dreams, 3-eyed crow and the entire element of mysticism - and HBO is obviously threading down this path.

[Kaitscralt]

And this is exactly what the problem is. So far the show is presenting Bran in a totally misleading manner. Unless they bring in the 3-eyed-crow part of the story very soon, Bran will become the most boring and obsolete character of the TV series for a long time ahead. The non-readers will never understand why he matters for the story and will have no reason to expect any feats of strength from him.

I wish to believe that a character of Bran's scale would serve a greater purpose than making viewers anxious between ep1, 2 and 3.

Well, to be fair, Brans "quest" so far has yielded nothing after four books and most people on these boards say his POV's are their least favorite chapters. I think the show can take their time with him. Besides, all it will take is one conversation about the dream to catch us up.

[Solmyr]

Well, to be fair, Brans "quest" so far has yielded nothing after four books and most people on these boards say his POV's are their least favorite chapters. I think the show can take their time with him. Besides, all it will take is one conversation about the dream to catch us up.

So is it the board that is directing the show now? :) I thought it was David Benioff. I doubt GRRM told David "Screw Bran, he is eaten by Coldhands at the beginning of Dance and never seen again. All them dreams were just to keep the fans expectant during the long wait between book3 and 5".

And yes, they can bring the dream in a conversation, but I wished to remark that until they do, Bran will seem boring and obsolete (and crippled).

[Ferrum Aeternum]

I doubt GRRM told David "Screw Bran, he is eaten by Coldhands at the beginning of Dance and never seen again. All them dreams were just to keep the fans expectant during the long wait between book3 and 5".

I lol'd. :lol:

And yes, they can bring the dream in a conversation, but I wished to remark that until they do, Bran will seem boring and obsolete (and crippled).

I think they'll do that soon enough. He just awoke from his coma - give the TV audience time to get adjusted to that. It was a great way to end the episode; anything else (like a dream sequence which even readers find confusing the first time) would only complicate the matter and lessen the impact. I think they'll mention the dreams to establish them as fact, then portray one to give the audience an idea of what's going on. They won't completely abandon that part of the story, which is obviously the crux of Bran's entire arc.

[Abaddon]

I'm pretty sure we did. In the book Jon is far less mopey than he is in the show. He has a brooding nature, but we have some chapters of him at Winterfell having fun, smiling, interacting with his siblings, playing with ghost, etc. It seems all he does in the show is act angry, practice his swordplay, and act all mopey. I'd like more than a 1-note Jon Snow.

I can only think you completely skipped his great farewell scenes with Arya and Robb.

[Guest Raids]

And this is exactly what the problem is. So far the show is presenting Bran in a totally misleading manner. Unless they bring in the 3-eyed-crow part of the story very soon, Bran will become the most boring and obsolete character of the TV series for a long time ahead. The non-readers will never understand why he matters for the story and will have no reason to expect any feats of strength from him.

Wait wait wait. You really think the intention is to totally gut Bran's character and that it's not more likely that they're just going to tell that story some way other than showing a small boy falling through the air conversing with a talking crow? Like, nobody had the idea that maybe that scene would come off better if Bran just told someone, like Maester Luwin, about it instead of the audience living it with him? Because it would look so good on TV?

You were probably only noticing the absence of familiar stuff, but there was definitely an aspect of creepy going on in the scene where he wakes up - he doesn't blink, for one. We're supposed to think of weird things that happen to people when they wake up from comas, etc. Just wait until next week.

[Loras]

Wait wait wait. You really think the intention is to totally gut Bran's character and that it's not more likely that they're just going to tell that story some way other than showing a small boy falling through the air conversing with a talking crow? Like, nobody had the idea that maybe that scene would come off better if Bran just told someone, like Maester Luwin, about it instead of the audience living it with him? Because it would look so good on TV?

I agree! I think that Bran's dreams are the exception to the 'show, don't tell' rule. The show is trying to establish a realistic world which has multiple layers to engage with the viewers who would dismiss it as a fantasy show. I think his dreams would be very off putting at this early stage, but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them later, after a significant amount of world building has been done. I think it is important to show that most of the characters would dismiss Bran's dreams but that Bran himself believes. Even that aspect adds depth to the tone of the show.

[Ran]

Spoilers from later episodes:

The three-eyed crow appears. There are dreams. They are just different and very brief.

[Guest Raids]

Now if only someone could tell me how they're going to pull off the midgets-raping-Westeros scene in the House of the Undying I'll be all set.

[Ser Greguh]

The dreams obviously weren't shown in the second episode because there simply wasn't the rhythm for them; having Bran wake up the instant Lady is killed conveys much the same message that the dreams did (that there is something off, something supernatural, something very very important going on and that Bran is in touch with it) and they can include dreams at other points to emphasize Bran's role in things to come. Conversations he will have in the future, likely with Osha and Luwyn, will only reinforce that. Those who think "omg they didn't show the three-eyed crow while Bran was in a coma! storyline ruined!" are severely lacking in imagination imo.

[Solmyr]

The show is trying to establish a realistic world which has multiple layers to engage with the viewers who would dismiss it as a fantasy show.

Dead rising and supernatural beings wielding swords of ice in the very first scene of the pilot episode. The camera zooming over some dragon's eggs 3-4 times per episode (even non-readers are 99% certain there will be dragons soon). It seems to me the director is desperate to stress the show has fantasy elements in it. Bran's dream is no more fantastical than zombies, supernatural beings made of ice or dragons.

Thanks for the info Ran, looking forward to dismissing my fears.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

The dreams obviously weren't shown in the second episode because there simply wasn't the rhythm for them; having Bran wake up the instant Lady is killed conveys much the same message that the dreams did (that there is something off, something supernatural, something very very important going on and that Bran is in touch with it) and they can include dreams at other points to emphasize Bran's role in things to come.

Yep. Notice after Ned draws his dagger - when the scene flashes back to Bran's sickroom, Summer whines and frets a bit. This enforces the notion of a supernatural connection between the direwolves. Then at the instant of Lady's death, Bran awakes, which demonstrates his connection with Lady, via Summer. A hint at the concept of warging, and one that neatly fit the episode's pace and direction. Bran's dreams (once they occur) will make more sense.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I was a bit disappointed of the naming, but I do understand why they didn't film the Three Eyed Crow. They will probably speak of the crow later on and Bran will tell Luwin or someone about his dream, I think that will be both easier and better for a television adaption. If they do leave out the crow (although I don't believe they will), I will be very disappointed.

It would have been a mistake to show the Crow dream in ep2. If we had the dream, it would have killed the suspsense as to whether or not bran would die. It was more dramatic to show his eyes open. They may well show it or refer to it in ep3.

[russjass]

I dont really take issue with anything that seem to be bothering people on here, (with the possible exception of Tyrion waking up with the dogs. Why? What does that show?), what I do miss is any mention of the kingsgaurd, any white cloaks at all, even a mention of Roberts seven. This, I believe, would show Jamie in the light he is shown in the first few books, pending revelations later, as a complete bastard. And lower. The strength of disgust related to braking an oath in Martins world is not really conveyed. This could have been included in the extra conversation between Jon and Jaime when they talk about taking the oath for life as a brother of the Nights Watch

[Xenophon]

I dont really take issue with anything that seem to be bothering people on here, (with the possible exception of Tyrion waking up with the dogs. Why? What does that show?)

Yeah, what was that? Was he supposed to be wasted the night before?

As someone who doesn't read/watch much fantasy at all, I agree with the poster who said the director is playing up the fantastical elements of the story. The show definitely feels fantastic to me. Really anything set in an alternate world would feel like fantasy, but they seem to have gone out of their way to remind us that this is an alternate world where magic lurks on the edges of the "real".

[Ferrum Aeternum]

Yeah, what was that? Was he supposed to be wasted the night before?

Now that you mention it that was pretty dumb; in the book he's been in the library all night reading then runs into Joff & the Hound on his way to breakfast. Guess they felt an episode this serious needed Tyrion-on-a-bender for a little comic relief? :wacko:

[Guest Raids]

This, I believe, would show Jamie in the light he is shown in the first few books, pending revelations later, as a complete bastard. And lower. The strength of disgust related to braking an oath in Martins world is not really conveyed.

Has anyone even referred to him as Kingslayer?