The Ghostbear

Cas Stark: The Screenplay Adapatation award is not exclusively about any kind of "faithfulness" to the source material, either literally or in spirit. A large part of that award category is an acknowledgement (in part due to the legal issues involving copyright) that it is not an original work, but owes a debt to the source however distant. And not everyone understands that adaptations aren't going to be exact as is evidenced by some of the posts in these forums. Besides, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards are not a final measure of critical excellence in the terms you've stated, but are rather a vote by the members of the professional community who are as likely to vote for their friends, or because someone "should" have won an Oscar by now. Was "The Greatest Show On Earth" really the "best" film of 1952? Should "Ghost" have even been nominated when "Goodfellas" is its point of comparison in 1990? A case can be made for the Oscars being an insider popularity contest. The screenplay for "Out Of Africa" cites at least three different sources. To which is it "faithful" in spirit or essence? Despite disagreeing, thanks for the feedback!

"You don't seem to understand where most critics are pointing. The least people that argue against the show last episodes do it because of the changes from the book. The main problem most critics have with the series, me amongst them, is that some changes made from the book totally turn around the characters, making them incoherent, or even worse, filling them with cliché treats of typical tv characters, making them simply plain and without any personality. Such is the case of Tyrion, Jon, and in this episode Asha. Their reactions in certain situations seem out of point and speaks against how they are in the books." Actually, I DO get it. As I said, comparing the series to the books is a flawed foundation for criticism of the series because it promotes a goal that can never be accomplished. Any work of art must be taken on its own merits. Just because someone has read the books doesn't mean that their interpretation of what they read is the "pure" and singular interpretation. Everyone's reading experience is different, and because of that the shows must be assessed on their own merits rather than in constant comparison with the books. Total "faithfulness" to the books is an impossible goal since everyone who reads the books sees and expereinces different things. An event (such as the Red Wedding) will be acknowledged as having happened by all readers, but each reader will take away a different, very personal vision of what they read. Therefore rather than constantly running to the books as a justification for one's complaints, valid arts criticism tries to view each artwork - even if based on another artwork - on its own merits. A painting based on a photograph is unlikely to be a "perfect" replica of the photo. So what? If it WAS a perfect likelnesss of the original, what would be the point? The Eyrie in my mind's eye is very likely different from yours, which in turn is different from the Art Director's vision of it for the television screen. Observing that Asha/Yara's turn around seems sudden and comes from out of nowhere is valid for you, and up to a point I agree with you.. However, I've had exeperiences in my life that resulted in changes of mind and heart that were very abrupt, and overrode my previously held opinions and feelings toward the person in question. What makes the difference is that we can discuss that abruptness from one dramatic "beat" to the next without ever referencing the book because the book is ultimately irrelevant to the critical discussion at hand. Did the writers and director provide a solid foundation for her change of heart or not? THAT is a valid discussion. Did they change her too abruptly because it was different in the book is irrelevant because the series is not the book(s). I've read all of the books more than once and am perfectly comfortable not seeing the series as being "less" than the books, but rather an adaptation for dramatic purposes. I can objectively distance myself from my reading experience and enjoy this 'version" on its own terms. And the series, when viewed by and of itself is a wonderful thing. Perfect? No - nothing is. But nevertheless, a wonderful gift from the remarkable cast and crew that have tackled something that might seem unfilmable unless you have a solid grasp of how production and dramatic choices are made in the performing arts. Yet here it is, and it is very successful and accomplished. That being said, thanks for contributing a thoughtful and intelligent response that keeps the dialogue going without devolving into petty squabbling.

The pervasive negativity here both astonishes and amuses me. So many negative posts, usually based on the critically flawed foundation "but it's not like the books!" No it isn't nor will it ever be, nor could it be no matter what. what works in a book probably won't work on film; they're different mediums folks and have their own demands. Learn to view art on its own terms, not your personal comparison with another artwork even if they are somehow related. Nobody is capable of the "perfect" interpretation of the books. One person's image of a chracter, location, or whatever will rarely if ever match another's. When you spend your time projecting how you sw something in the book, you aren't seeing the show/film that's in front of you on ITS terms. The second problem is wanting to see something NOW just because you know it's coming (see above regarding bringing your own baggage to reviewing). But unless you've been a fly on the wall in the showrunners' offices, you have no idea where it's going or what they will retain, omit, or restructure. Your personal vision of what you "would have done" is not The Truth. Also try to learn about film/television production. After nearly 30 years working in theatre, I have a pretty good idea of what goes into bringing something alive in the performing arts, and these folks are doing a magnificent job with this series. Don't like "tying up storylines"? Well, it has to be done or the same people would be complaining that they didn't tie things up and left everything dangling. The complaints that "nothing happened to advance the story" are groundless. Not all action is physical. Character development and plot depth can happen in simple conversation if your mind is open to it. Dig into the Netflix library and rent "My Dinner With Andre" to see a wonderful piece of drama that has no action except for what occurs between two people talking while seated at a table. But if you want swords and fighting , raping and killing, running and fleeing, etc. all the time, if that's how you define dramatic action, you'll be bored senseless despite the fact that this is an acknowledged excellent film. Nothing "happens" in "Waiting for Godot" but it's an acknowledged masterpiece that eventually retrained our thinking about theatre and acting. Boring episode? Only if you aren't paying total attention and/or don't understand the nature of drama. The writers were very wise not to try to equal or top the previous episode which was arguably the most devastating and important episode of the series to date. Instead, they created a transition piece to brindge this season and the next. in retrospect, many now complaining will more fully appreciate what they did once season four unfolds. they did a great job and I for one will wait as patiently as a can until next year. This is some of the best stuff out there and even at its weakest moments far outshines the vast majority of the dumbed down garbage that's broadcast. Let's enjoy our giift instead of complaining that it's not exactly what we wanted for Christmas. GREAT SHOW, GREAT SEASON. Everyone involved deserves our thanks, respect and support. BRING ON SEASON 4!