Mr Fixit

I'm not certain on which points you and I are in disagreement. You said yourself it's not the worst episode of the series. I said the same. As for internet faux-outrage, well, it is. Do you think mainstream media care one bit about Jaime's character arc and the supposed damage to it? Do you think they protest because Jaime raping Cersei means the show condones rape, glamorizes and romanticizes it? That this, after all the shit that has happened on the show, is somehow the most morally reprehensible act we've ween? No. They jumped on the bandwagon because they saw the potential for clickbait. Just look at the dates of the published online material. The media outlets had these episodes for weeks in advance. Almost no one made a big fuss over the scene. Actually, many respectable critics noted the interesting deviation from the books and expressed interest in how it will turn out. Then the net explodes in outrage and suddenly everyone publishes articles on inappropriateness of the scene. So, yeah, where media and the internet culture are concerned, it's faux-outrage, an opportunity to stand on a soapbox and show just how progressive they all are. Then they can pat each other on the back and say mission accomplished.

An expected reaction by hardcore book fans, fueled by this crazy overblown internet faux-outrage. Does anyone really think this was the worst episode of the show? Come on. It's not even close. Just how last episodes's average was no doubt brought down considerably because of Stannis faux-outrage. Though to be honest, that episode was probably brought up by the Joff hype so maybe, when all is said and done, there we were closer to the truth. I find the Unsullied reaction a good barometer: this Jaime thing barely registered as something inconceivable and unforgivable on their radars.

That's a great idea, Ran. For what it's worth, I always believed the first several S1 episodes were overrated around here. Episode 2 especially has unreasonably high marks, while in my opinion it's one of the worst episodes of the entire TV show. Not from the tired purist/non-purist perspective, but simply as an hour of TV.

I'm wondering about that... All the lords of the Reach *are* Tyrell vassals, it's not like they can switch allegiances without batting an eye. The haste with witch Loras and Margaery left implied they feared for their lives. From their own bannermen? Why? That whole plot point I don't quite understand. And if Tyrell army is so weak compared to the Baratheon army, why would Blackwater turn out the way it probably will?

Hey man, just go read around this site. There are dozens upons dozens of such examples. Every single little change gets lambasted. Of course, there is usually some silly explanation that makes it seem like the poster has a rational reason for disagreeing, some seeming justification for why a scene is objectively bad. Like, I dunno, Tywin raising his voice and "smiling", or Myrcella crying, someone was about to give up on the show becuse Brienne was too pretty (and you know, her ugliness is a big part of who she is, therefore if she's not ugly enough, they are destroying her character!), I've read many harp against Theon killing Rodrik because it's not it the books, not to mention the furor surrounding the missing dragons (even though it happened at the very end of the episode which makes it hard to critique one way or the other until we've had a chance to see how it plays out next week). Edited to add: Oh yeah, many voiced their adamant displeasure regarding Jaime's dyslexia. Why? Well, it wasn't in the books obviously... Examples are endless really.

I've read the books as well (and they are my favorite fantasy series of all time), and I am perfectly fine with the TV changes. Going into the show, I knew there would be changes, and I DON'T CARE. As long as the spirit of Martin's books is preserved, as long as acting and production values are stratospherically good, I wouldn't care if D&D introduced flying robots into the story. I suggest people here go read GRRM's piece on his adaptation of Zelazny's story in Twilight Zone. I too enjoy TWoP's forums very much. They are critical as well (as they should be), but look at the show first and foremost, without the constant droning comparison to the books. I find it even more interesting how some of the most fanatical book purists don't actually know what's in the books! So they screamed about Loras and Renly being gay, Stannis having sex with Melisandre, Arya not naming Tywin while he's in Harrenhal, Arya escaping through a bunch of Lannister men, etc, etc, when all that was in the books as well. If they can't be bothered to remember that, I'm not gonna take their opinions very seriously.

I am not saying you do it, but just go looking through various threads. Many critisisms are well argued, more power to them, but you'll find a big bunch of those that amount to "it's different in the books. It doesn't make any sense", without any patience to wait and see what the TV writers had in mind.

That's somewhat silly. If it's small, why change it? If it's major, nooo, why did you change it? They changed it because they though it fit with the tone of the scene. Either way, it's a pretty inconsequential detail, so I don't know what the fuss is about. She cries. She doesn't cry. Who cares. Myrcella is a character whose name probably even 90% of casual readers couldn't be bothered to remember.

What in the name of all that is sweet and true is up with this Myrcella fetish? Jesus Christ, whether some tertiary character cries or doesn't cry...

Absolutely! TV is a completely different beast, and there are so many opportunities to take, now that there are no POV characters. Some people have trouble understanding that the POV structure of the books makes some characters seem different than they really are! Take Jaime, for example, and his change between AGoT and ASoS. Or is he really that changed? Is it perhaps in part the product of him becoming a POV character, allowing us to explore his mind? Both, I'd say. Same with Tywin, only indirectly since he isn't a POV character. For me, seeing him with Shae, his son's whore, was a big shocker. WTF? But then I realised it was Martin's brilliant way of showing us something we couldn't had known about him. Namely, that the legend of Tywin, son of Tytos, lord of Casterly Rock, Shield of Lannisport and Warden of the West, is in a way more than the man himself. That in the end, he is just a man that "didn't shit gold".

And how does that pertain to anything I said in my post you responded to? You were countering my argument with a made-up counterargument that has absolutely nothing in common with anything I've written.

You pretty much disqualified yourself from any reasonable discussion with such silly generalisations.

I laughed. A lot. :cheers: Yeah, it's... mind-boggling and so, so silly to read the list of complaints. So many people don't like Arya-Tywin conversations not because they're bad (I really think they are fantastic), but because Tywin is somehow, somewhere "off". I'm wondering... what if Martin hadn't written the "bed" scene with Shae and Tywin in ASoS? And let's say the TV series "invents" such a scene in its fourth season. I am willing to bet that all the "purists" would torch their TV screens and quit watching because "they completely and utterly destroyed Tywin", "Benioff and Weiss are morons who don't understand what makes Tywin tick", etc... I still remember all the hoopla around Tywin's first scene, skinning a stag: "he'd never get his hands dirty, they ruined him, yadda-yadda". Not much point in paying attention to such things, methinks.

I've been watching TV shows and reading books for some decades now. And while I respect your opinion and your right to have it, that kind of inflexible approach to source material often proves to be pretty detrimental. Not really the best examples, I admit, but I am reminded of all the sound and fury Deep Space Nine was subjected to because "it's not really Star Trek" and because it "betrayed Roddenberry's vision". Or the bashing the reimagined Battlestar Galactica endured as it was called GINO (Galactica in name only). By all means, put the books at the front of your considerations, all nice and dandy, but please do try to avoid some of the pitfalls you seem to repeatedly fall into.

You tell'em, tiger.

Seems to me you misinterpreted what I was trying to say, namely I was exactly in line with your reasoning :cheers:

I must admit I'm having real problems following Elio's and Linda's recaps lately. Let me say that I have great respect for their enthusiasm, love, and knowledge of the Martin's world. Their reviews are thorough, well-written, and interesting to read. But lately they are sounding more and more like uberfans that have trouble separating books and TV. I don't know what it is, but the nature of their critiques is increasingly becoming impenetrable and hard to follow, silly and excessive nit-picking is piling up, and overall sense of "that's not how it was in the books" is really starting to grate on me. Not to say that the series is perfect; far from it. I myself enjoyed the first season more (though not by much). But comparing their reviews to many others (by non-book-readers, for example) betrays how extremely biased in their "protection of the spirit of the novels" they've become. Some quotes from the review that are frankly quite bothersome because they reveal the inability to consider the show on its own for a moment: Perhaps those problems are more acute when you know what the adaptation changes have been ...play off incidents for humor that betray the tone of the novels Martin himself did it just fine in the novel... It is difficult to convey just how poorly this action-upped Qarth is coming out in our eyes, when compared to what’s actually in the novels writers of the show (...) betray a particular lack of understanding of what’s really going on in Qarth ...would it have truly been so hard to match Martin’s vision? Martin carefully avoids the topic of dragon theft in Essos It’s an okay scene, but it doesn’t feel like anything in the spirit of the novels

I'm really starting to wonder. Who are all those people who give high marks in polls? Judging by the comments, we are witnessing a hideous catastrophe of a TV show. Always nice to see people put things in perspective.

Look, if you're gonna just twist and interpret my words your way, go ahead. I won't reply, and you can just put words in my mouth and then respond. As for Rome, guess why it got cancelled...

Oh c'mon, that's not fair :frown5: I didn't say that. If you find Rozfest to be annoying, OK. It's part of that "scripting, directing, acting" thing. You don't like it because (I presume) you think those are just badly executed scenes that serve no purpose but to pander to a certain demographic. It's a perfectly fine sentiment.

Oh, I agree completely. It *is* obvious that something of this scale could use a bigger budget. Would I like to see a huge tourney with dozens of knights and hundreds of onlookers? Well, of course! Would I be ecstatic to see a large well choreographed battle? You betcha! I would love a 300 mil budget that would allow an unprecedented extravaganza to grace our screens :fencing: But, sad truth is, that's not realistic nor feasible. So we have two options really. Enjoy the series for what it is, judge it on its on merits, on the strengths (and weaknesses, of course) of its dialogues, direction, editing, actors' performances and overall faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the spirit of the books, or we can be disappointed because it doesn't match the grandeur and sprawling epicness of the written word. I don't presume to make that choice for anyone but myself. I am not interested in showing the error of anyone's ways. All I *am* saying is that you are potentially robbing yourselves of a chance to appreciate the show on its own terms, for what *it* is. No more, no less. :grouphug: Let's be friends now, shall we? :)

Well, of course context matters. It is unreasonable to expect LOTR style 300 million dollar budgets in a TV production. One has to understand this is the small screen, and adjust the expectations accordingly. And I have to repeat that GoT is most certainly not low budget. It may not have a huge big screen money thrown its way, but let's be honest and compare it to most other things on TV - it *is* huge, it *does* have a large number of beautiful sets and a mind-bogglingly large cast of top quality actors. It is filmed in N Ireland and Malta. The costs of this production are very very high. So let's be grateful for a change. Let's appreciate the fact that we're getting a rich, good-loking fantasy TV show on a scale far bigger than anything TV has ever seen, OK?

Yeah, that's what I would like as well. Would someone please point me in the direction of a TV show with such scope (number of locations, enormous cast...) that doesn't, in your opinion, look cheap? Not a challenge on my part, I'm simply asking.

Well, English isn't my first language either, so it's a tie :grouphug: My previous post wasn't really directed at anyone in particular, it's just that I am having a much better time reading the responses, and generally participating in discussions with viewers that haven't read the books. Their comments are... how to phrase it... more honest in a way? They watch the series and judge it on its own merits. They like what they like and don't like what they don't like (well, this sounds dumb :blushing: ). The whole "book this, book that" mentality is ultimately self-defeating and just plain boring.

This attitude right there is what I really find inexplicable, and to be honest, a little saddening. Jesus man, we've been watching the same series, right? All those enormous sets, costumes, a staggering cast of characters... The scale of this project is huge, and it shows. Anyone who stops for a second and really thinks about it can see it. Sorry, perhaps this sounded a bit too confrontational; that wasn't my intention. The thing is, I am a bit let down by book fans that just seem to be unable to put things into perspective and are asking the impossible from TV production.