sj4iy

GK, my problem with show defenders is that they don't seem to understand or at the very least admit that not only is the "nitpicking" a legitimate criticism, but that often the deviations change whole character dynamics that are basically completely contradictions of the books that the show is supposedly "based" on.

How condescending. I understand very well what nitpicking is. And it CAN be legitimate criticism if it really does affect the storyline of the show. However, again...being different from the books is not in and of itself a problem. The show is and always was going to be different. It was never going to be 100% the same, and anyone who was expecting that has their expectations set incorrectly.

Nitpick the show on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot it's telling. Nitpick the books on the mistakes it makes concerning the story and plot IT'S telling. But they are not, and never will be, the same thing.

-And my nitpicks of the show this season include:

Molestown slaughtered for no discernible reason

Locke's ill-thought out plan to kill Bran Stark and his anticlimatic death

The sheer amount of time we spend in Tyrion's cell- characterization is fine, but we seriously spend more time there than we do with about half of the characters

-My nitpicks of the book it followed this season:

Mance's terrible, terrible battle strategies against a small group of old and crippled NWmen when he had 100k men at his disposal

Jon being put in command when he just returned from desertion, is seriously injured and 17 years old

Coldhands, the elk-riding deus ex machina

I may be a 'show defender' simply because I like the show and think that people here are too harsh on it, but it doesn't mean I like everything about the show. I also enjoy the books, but don't like everything about them, either, so I don't know what category you would want to put me in. Really, I just like to think of myself as someone who can separate the two and criticize them fairly as two separate entities. If that makes me a show apologist or defender, so be it. But I would defend the books to the same extent as the show if I felt people were being unfairly harsh on them, so I'm an equal-opportunity apologist and critic.

No one is saying the show is perfect. That is a specious retort you guys continue to throw out there whenever anyone defends the show. The show is DIFFERENT from the book! It will continue to be different from the book no matter how much you people stomp and winge. Get over it...

The one thing you show haters have yet to answer is why do you continue to watch? There are shows that I don't like so I simply don't watch them. I don't go to fan forums and endlessly crticize them.

Thank you. I've actually made my fair share of complaints about the show, but I always judge the show on its own merits instead of constantly comparing it to the books. "Not being like the books" is NOT in and of itself a problem. But yes, I will criticize the show when it does something wrong.

Agreed but this place a record of holding the show to an impossible level of scrutiny while giving every flaw in the books a pass.

Well, that's because the books are perfect and the show is blasphemy.

;)

<snip>

*applause*

Awesome job compiling all of those stats, btw. Really interesting to see how people are worried about the 10-episode limit...I think we'll see if it really becomes a problem next season when they recombine (yay) the next two books.

FYI, this is thread where we discuss whether we liked a GoT episode and if not why. You are perfectly entitled to adore each episode with or without any arguments. What you are not entitled to do is to argue endlessly against people who find the show lacking. Respect other people's opinions. And also FYI, D&D do check this forum, so fans do and should state their different opinions in hope that the producers/writers will take some suggestions on board.

They don't, and they've explicitly said they stopped reading it a while back.

http://winteriscoming.net/2014/05/06/david-benioff-dan-weiss-pact-read-online-comments/

"Benioff says, “We both made this pact that we were going to stop looking at stuff online because you can go into the rabbit hole and get lost in this world of online Thrones commentary if you’re not careful. We both felt a lot saner after we stopped doing that.”

And even if they did, what have I done wrong? I'm simply disagreeing with someone else's opinion, and I have not been disrespectful about it in the slightest. Tell me how I've "endlessly argued" or "disrespected anyone's feelings", because I'm honestly confused. This isn't the nitpick thread, and we were talking about the entire season (and series) at one point. I pointed out that televisions shows are cancelled when people stop watching. Viewers have power, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Of course, there's always the fact that maybe someone just doesn't like something that a bunch of other people do like, but they still lose nothing by not watching it. I hate The Big Bang Theory, but obviously, more people like it than I do. But if enough people stop watching, it will be cancelled.

whats the point of defending a multi million company against people with no power that love the series?

Now how do you like them apples?

Wrong. The audience is ultimately the ones who decide whether a show survives or dies. Don't like it? Don't watch it. If enough people agree with you, then the show will be cancelled. That's how tv has always worked.

To each their own I guess. But the uncharacteristically low ratings for 4.10 on the ratings thread speaks volumes.

These ratings threads mean shit, to be honest. People can choose any number they want without any real system. Leaving out LS at the end shouldn't have been enough justification for giving the show a 1, but people did it anyway. Some people gave it a low rating simply because they didn't like that Brienne beat the Hound. I mean, it's ridiculous.

Critically, the episode was very well received. It was a great endcap for the first half of the story, while setting up the second half. It did exactly what it was supposed to.

I am still waiting for someone who gave the show a 9 or 10 to explain to me why Tyrion went up the ladder to Tywin. Or why Shae tried to knife him on sight. Or why he would go mad when someone insulted Shae, the whore who betrayed him and tried to kill him.

Tyrion's impulsive, stubborn and doesn't think things through- his smart mouth of his is what got him into his predicament in the first place. He also has wanted nothing more than his father's approval his whole life. It makes sense.

Shae betrayed him, she's not freaking stupid.

He truly loved her- which, if you have to ask in the first place, must have not be obvious to you, despite the fact that we have seen them together in a loving relationship for several years now.

We'll just putting a calendar week between show events didn't give the illusion of 4 chapters either. The battle was also longer than one night. It would have made 4.9 a full hour and gave them space in 4.10 to actually show characters working towards events instead of event, event, event, event, event, event....credits.

Spread it out longer than one night and then you can't have an entire episode dedicated to it because other things are happening.

But in any case, it still doesn't change the fact that the themes for both episodes worked better with the ending the way it was.

Reign of Fire is fantasy? I've always just viewed it as post-apocalyptic action. I mean yeah, there's dragons but it doesn't feel like a fantasy at all.

"There's dragons"

It's fantasy.

Also, I was making a joke, as both of those "generic Hollywood fantasies" were terrible movies.

My question is why people think "Only Cat" is important in the first place.

My second would be why it's being discussed in an episode that has nothing to do with it.

They still did all that even with Stannis showing up. Them waiting a week to show them saving the NWs ass 10 minutes after Jon left the gate didn't do anything but suffocate 4.10.

No, it didn't. Even in the books, Stannis doesn't show up immediately. It takes him what, 4 chapters? But sure, let's cram all that in episode 4.9 where it doesn't fit thematically or dramatically because some people want it that way.

Indeed? What is generic Hollywood fantasy exactly?

Well, obviously, Dungeons and Dragons, or Reign of Fire.

GoT is just like those XD

I love all the comments in this thread directed towards people disappointed with the episode and the show. "Stop watching! D&D are gods that can do no wrong!" Please. This show isn't perfect and it's ridiculous to tell those that are criticizing it that "it's no big deal." It is a big deal because D&D's changes indicate they're no longer intending to adapt the story GRRM is writing. That may not bother some people but it sure as hell bothers me.

Utter hyperbole. Liking the show ≠ liking every single thing about the show. I can criticize the show without expecting it to be exactly like the books.

See i think the only way you can truly cover everything is to make an animated series.

TBH, I think this is the type of story that works best as live-action (and I say this as a lover of animation). It's just too tied to reality to be a viable animated show.

Don't see that anyones posted this...but this is how it should have ended. They certainly had the time with that short episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7QWm4pa8s

I thought they ended it correctly. Adding Stannis completely undermines the point of the episode, which is that these men are alone and desperate, with no hope of any help- yet they fight bravely and valiantly, even though they have nothing to gain from it. Stannis didn't need to be there, and I'm glad they made the choice they did to end it where they did.

You think a two hour movie is going to be closer to the books than a 55 or 56 hour tv adaptation? My poor deluded little Robin. Make the bad men at HBO fly.

Seriously- a movie adaptation would cut out about 80% of the books. I'm sure people would LOVE that.

Reno

:rofl:

Hmmmm interesting. There is one book scene in which Dolorous Edd sprinkles nutmeg into a pot of hard boiling eggs in the shell. I'm sure there is some reason for that nutmeg but haven't figured it out ;)

He's a terrible cook XD

I guess next time we go on and praise what a great adaptation Amadeus was of the life of Mozart.

It is a great film, no one can deny that, but it is a horrible adaptation.

W. has a s much to do with George Bush as grapefruit juice and the pope.

But go on, I love to read those rant posts that turn and twist everything to whitewash the show. It's rather entertaining.

adaptation...tsk.

Google the word before using it.

False equivalency. Neither of those were adaptations of a work of fiction, but instead were semi-biographical movies. Neither of which has anything to do with GoT or its ability to adapt ASoIaF.

If you want to prove your argument that the show is failing to adapt the books successfully, then you need to illustrate:

1. What the overall theme of ASoIaF is. Why? Because without that theme, you have no way to prove that the changes being made in the show have adversely affected the overall theme of the books.

2. Examples of changes that have destroyed or changed that theme.

Also, if you want to use examples of other adaptations to prove your point, then you need to find an adaptation that is exactly the same as the source material to prove that it can be done and was successful as a film when transcribed exactly the way it was in the book. I could easily name a dozen movies that strayed from the source material while being a successful film and a successful adaptation. Can you do the same?

The books got it wrong then, sure.

I actually don't debate if the books got something right or wrong or if the show corrected a "mistake".

The books are the law and the facts when it comes to ASOIAF. At least for me.

Why then has Sansa a chamber pot? She shits in a porcelain dish and puts it under her bed until her handmaidens come. Books and Series say that. Why then would the privy that has probably even a direct connection to the outer wall of the Red Keep be located somewhere else?

In most castles that still stand, the toilet is located in a room directly at the wall. So the excrements weren't kept in a box to collect later on, but the toilet you sat on had a slide that let the shit fall through the wall into the moat.

So they more or less shat down the wall.

So there was not really a scent left.

And as a highborn and in the world of grrm, they likely had a vase of water that they poured after they were done, so to wash down the literal shit stains.

^sorry for the image. :)

...yeah, I really don't feel like discussing the sanitation habits of the characters in the book vs the show.

The books got it wrong, basically. The show fixed it. The show is allowed to do that, because the books are NOT law, nor are they the bible. Changes are, always have been and always will be allowed. If Martin makes a mistake, like say, a regular Wildling archer's arrow can reach 700 feet straight up in the air to hit a guy on top of the Wall (which happened), then the show is ALLOWED to say "hmm, that could never happen, let's fix that" and change it to where the Wildling's arrow no longer reaches, but a Giant's arrow could. Even Martin admitted that the arrow thing was a mistake. So it's all good now.

But in the books it was right next to his suite

The books got it wrong, then, because that's a terrible place to put it when you don't have indoor plumbing.

minor changes like Jaime being back way earlier. which was not a big deal

minor changes like "the Lannisters send their regards" and? Jaime is still a Lannister, right?

minor changes like Arya and Tywin which was better than the book, as agreed by almost everyone

minor changes like Gendry and Edric combined into one, who still had so little to do that we didn't even see him for the entire 4th season

minor changes like Astapor she still sacked it

minor changes like Yunkai she still sacked it

minor changes like Meereen she still sacked it and took control of it

minor changes like Yara and the Dreadfort not the best scene, but the point was to show how lost Theon is

Balon alive not for long

Jojen dead we don't even know if he's alive in the books

Hizdahr the good guy for now

Jorah the loyal ...not getting this one

Belwas the nonexistent and not necessary

Shae the likable who still died?

Brienne and the Hound which was awesome

the Vale and the Hound which was still awesome

Rorge and Biter and the Hound which led to the Hound's death

the Mountain that remains silent ...because it's sort of hard to hear people talking over someone screaming

the Bloodraven with the two brown eyes oh no, that makes such a difference to his character!

the skeletons of snow hill dead people are dead people- I doubt the WW care about decomposition rates

the boy from Molestown who replaced Satin

Tysha the forgotten because Shae replaced her

Shae the attempted murderer can't blame her

Your Sister I can't believe people care about something as trivial as this

Coldhands the invisible Coldhands the unnecessary elk taxi service

There. I have nitpicked your nitpicks.

You really don't see the similarities?

They are basically the same. Kinda-same endgame, kinda-same actions, kinda-same dialogue. Stuff happens to different people or from different people, different stuff happens that seems the same, endgames are different, but still seem the same.

It's actually really a perfect comparison.

I don't at all.

STID did not follow the same story. GoT does.

STID was set in an alternate timeline. GoT is not.

GoT hits every single major occurrence (death, marriage, etc) that happens in the book. STID does not.

They aren't remotely the same. GoT is not a loose adaptation of the source material at all. Changing dialogue and adding a few things to some characters' storylines isn't the same as playing fast and loose with the material. Those are necessary changes required to transcribe the story from one medium to another.

STID is not an adaptation of ST:TWoK. It's an alternate story using some of the same characters.

GoT is an adaptation of ASoIaF because it's the same story with the same characters and the same end point with minor changes.

I call that "loosely based on" or "using characters and locations from xy"

These are things, I just don't know the term.

I, Robot is like that. It uses things and plot points from all of the works of Asimov.

"Inspired by" is different from an adaptation. It means you're telling a different story, but have elements that you borrowed from another story. An adaptation means that you have a story in one medium that you are transcribing to another.

The second Harry Potter movie is an example of a great adaptation that isn't a very good movie. It was so staunch in following all of the plot points bit by bit that it completely forgot to be a movie. It felt more like a reading of the book.

The third Harry Potter movie was not as good of an adaptation as the second movie, but it was a much, much better film. It flowed better and had more drama and build up.

"The Watchers on the Wall" was very loose with its material, but it made a great episode.

This is why I don't hold it against writers or filmmakers when they don't follow things word for word, part for part. I want it to feel like a movie or a tv show...I don't want it to feel like the book.