Jump to content

StepStark

Members
  • Content count

    1,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StepStark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,586 profile views
  1. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    But that's hardly the point, isn't it? Even if he dies in the first chapter in TWOW, his story will make endlessly more sense than in the show. I'm not even sure you can call a "story" what he got in the show.
  2. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    This is not accurate at all. In the books, Tyrion was told that she was a whore who was paid to have sex with him but then tried to take advantage of his naivety and from that perspective he didn't have any reason to find her protests illogical. He had doubts in the sense that he felt the gang-rape of Tysha was wrong but he didn't have reason to be suspicious about the story Tywin and Jaime sold to him. And that is why he was so furious when Jaime revealed the truth, because it's pretty obvious that Jaime's word was the main reason Tyrion even bought the story in the first place. And about Tyrion raping her, well, Tyrion was led to believe that she brought embarrassment to him and that because of that he brought embarrassment to his family. It's not unimaginable that he got aroused with that mindset. I think hate-fuck is the expression. That's why the truth Jaime revealed hit even harder. So yes, the story in the books make perfect sense. By the way, what you did here is pure nitpicking. George left out many details about the incident because that's how storytelling works, especially if it's about something that happened 10 years ago. Sometimes readers have to fill in the blanks and in this case it's really not that hard to do that. The show is entirely different because their logical gaps are as big as Harrenhall, but the books always give you enough so you can create your own picture in your head.
  3. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Not really. My "Show!Margaery-criteria"is not that at all. The problem with Margaery is not that she's one-dimensional (she is, but that's not the point), but that she's written poorly. Unless you think that seduction goes as it was written in her scenes from the show. Areo is one-dimensional because his entire purpose is to provide window into other characters. He's not important at all and GRRM is very clear about that. Everyone else is important but he isn't. The only important thing about Areo is his ax and that's it. He's the very definition of tertiary character, just so happens that he's also a POV for Dorne's court. Nice touch if you ask me, to give POV to a tertiary character. It'd be like giving a POV to Boros Blunt for example. Arys is by no means one-dimensional. In fact his character is somewhat ridiculously developed for someone who play a very minor role in the big scheme of things. He's fleshed out in Sansa chapters in early ACOK where his romanticism is hinted at, and then again in his POV chapter in AFFC where he's consumed by romanticism, and then he meets his tragic end. I don't think GRRM needed to bother that much about Arys, but he's anything but one-dimensional. Arianne inconsistent? Really? I'm honestly curious because I've never thought of her as inconsistent and never heard anyone say that about her. What is inconsistent about her?
  4. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Considering that not a single character in the books is written remotely as badly as Margaery in the show... why would I do that? So? Secondary characters usually don't have arcs of their own. They usually serve arcs of main characters. Especially in a story with as many main characters as ASOIAF has. What would be the point of Penny's arc? And also, you can't have it both ways. You criticize GRRM for adding "too many new characters" in AFFC and ADWD, and at the same time criticize him for not giving them arcs. That's mutually exclusive, don't you think? But the problem with Margaery isn't that she's a secondary character! It's the opposite: in the show she was promoted into a main character! and for no good reason. And the result is pathetic. Here's her scene with Renly from season two, I couldn't find a better edited cut (but the entire scene is even more ridiculous): Is this a well written scene? LOL! She comes off as a completely unscrupulous manipulator who'll stop at nothing to achieve her goal, but at the same time she's very bad at it because only a moron would ever think that THAT is how you seduce a guy. But lucky for her, Renly in the show is also a moron who needs to be taught about ways of the court, because he was apparently living in Flea Bottom during all those years he spent in King's Landing. This has to be the worst seduction/tutoring scene I've ever seen. It's written poorly and acted even worse. And where does Margaery go from there? All over the place. The rest of her "arc" is as inconsistent as one can imagine. Once her grandmother appeared in KL, Margaery turned into naive little girl who has to be reminded that Joff has to be seduced. And later on, she had to be reminded that Tommen has to be seduced too. The second task was written "brilliantly", in a way D&D obviously mastered: Tommen was turned into a bloody moron who can't see through any of Margaery's pathetic facades. At least, at the end it was revealed that she was loyal to her family, because she gave that rose to her grandmother. Hurrah! What a brilliant arc! Seriously, I haven't got the slightest idea what people love about show Margaery. I guess that some find Natalie Dormer attractive, which is okay, it's a good enough reason I suppose. But since the beginning it was obvious that D&D didn't cast her as Margaery, they cast her as their own Anne Boleyn which is coincidentally the exact part she played in Tudors. D&D told that they cast her because they've seen her in Turdors, Dormer said that they cast her because of that role, and she also said that D&D really didn't know what to do with her character and that's why she played her similar to how she played Anne Boleyn (with one notable exception, she didn't want to do sex scenes in GOT). It's all in their interviews. They're not hiding it. So please, why should I "judge some book characters as harshly as I do show Margaery"? Can you name at least one character from the books which is written so poorly? At least one? Yes, there are secondary and tertiary characters in the books. It's an epic story, of course there are going to be secondary and tertiary characters. But literally none of them is written as absurdly as Margaery Tyrell in the show, who was, to add insult to injury, promoted to one of the main characters. Until she was killed off as if she never existed. She'd be badly written even if she remained secondary character, as that scene from above shows. But then she started consuming scenes and time to even higher degree, because D&D apparently simply love every absurd character they create. To think that characters like Cat and Stannis got less screen time than Margaery tells you everything you need to know about this "adaptation". So you see, I wasn't exaggerating when I said that Margaery in the show is poorly written character. I didn't say that because she's different than Margaery in the books, or because she got more time. Olenna got more time too, but I didn't complain about her. I even said that her scenes are, for the most part, not written poorly, although I personally don't like them. You consider me a book purist? Fine, whatever. But before that, reply to the arguments I'm making here. Name me one character in the books that is written as pathetically as Margaery in the show. Penny? Give me a break. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care about Penny at all. There is nothing about Penny that is as absurd as Margaery lecturing Renly about ways of the court. It's the opposite actually because Penny is trying to teach Tyrion how to behave like a common dwarf, and that is actually logical because he's never been a common dwarf before.
  5. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Well, if you find show Margeary interesting as a presence, then I guess you won't have problems with her portrayal and her role. And that's okay. But I don't find her interesting at all. But even that's beside the point because it's not about personal preferences. I dislike show Olenna too, but I can't deny that she had an impact on the story and played a significant role. That much I can admit. I still dislike her scenes and how she's written, but at least she wasn't there just for the sake of being there. Margeary is just not that case at all. About Tyrells in general, I don't think it's comparable really. In the books they are much more believable as a family and as a powerhouse than in the show. In the books they are also ran by Olenna, but not overtly and Tyrell men are no joke (which makes Olenna's command even more impressive). But in the show Tyrell men are unrecognizable, Mace is literally a joke and a very ineffective one, and Loras is a gay caricature.
  6. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Let's get something straight. In the show, there is literally no progression in Margaery's character. Yes she is more involved than the same character is in the books, but none of that involvement can be seen as character progression. Obviously, I'm not counting writing inconsistencies as progression or development. In the show, she has no arc to speak of because it's just about her wanting to be The Queen and once she became one D&D obviously had no idea what to do with her. It's important to notice that she in no way influenced anything that happened to her, unless lying to protect your own brother (and subsequently getting arrested for perjury) passes off as "agency" today, and that means that all of her scenes added literally nothing. They added nothing to the overall plot, nothing to her character development (because there was none), and nothing to any deeper meaning. If Margaery was played by some minor actress like Myrcella and if her role was as "nearly nonexistent" as in the books, not a single thing would've been missed by viewers. You may like her show scenes as much as you want, but all of this is just facts. On the other hand, in the books Brienne goes through obvious development in AFFC. At the end of the novel she is not really the same person she was at the beginning. Now just imagine if she was entirely absent from AFFC and all of a sudden she reappears in ADWD at the end of that one Jaime chapter: readers would definitely realize that something of huge importance happened to her since the last time she was seen. Maybe you'd prefer it that way, while I prefer to follow development of important characters as closely as possible, but our preferences aren't important for what I'm saying here. And I'm saying that Brienne's chapters in AFFC had undeniable impact on her as a character and, depending on what happens next in that storyline, they may have equally big or even bigger impact on Jaime's and Cat's arcs. You may dislike her chapters as much as you want, and just to remind you that I'm also not a big fan of them, but this is just facts. So, when you say that you love Margaery in the show and you think that it was a change you appreciated, while at the same time you have nothing but criticism for Brienne's chapters in AFFC, you realize why someone can think that you have double standards: one set of standards for the show, which you criticize only if they do something that is universally seen as terrible by practically everyone, and another set of standards for the books which you criticize even when GRRM does something D&D fail to do over and over again?
  7. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Margaery is not "more fleshed out"in the show, she's a completely different character in the show, and she's also not really written well and not very well acted. I'd much prefer Margaery from the books instead of time- and scene-consuming version from the show which eventually meant nothing and brought nothing. It was a change made just so they can cast Natalie Dormer which is like one of definitions of unfaithful adaptation (and I have to repeat again - a very bad one). Tywin is a similar case only Charles Dance is much better actor than Natalie Dormer so his acting skills covered a lot of stupid writing in his scenes. His scenes with Arya were amusing to extent but ultimately served no purpose, while on the other hand there were no Arya's scenes with Roose like in the books. I'd much much prefer to have Roose-Arya than Tywin-Arya scenes. I'll never understand what people like about Brienne vs the Hound. Apparently many do, but it's a mystery to me why is that so. Hardhome is another mystery. I think they used all the most ridiculous battle tropes in that scene, and yet people loved it. Oh, and one more thing: what was the point of Hardhome? Nobody talks about it. Nobody thinks about it. Crows kill Jon all the same. Jon wages a war with Boltons all the same. If Hardhome didn't happen, would anything be different really? Not a single thing. So it was a filler, and yet I don't see anyone complaining about it. Really, what was the benefit of having that scene in the show? It wasn't a good battle scene (unless you think Jon being effectively spared couple of times by that WW is somehow rewarding and groundbreaking) and it influenced nothing. What was the point then? There is a world of difference between Brienne staring at a candle for episodes on one hand and Brienne meeting various people in war-ravaged Westeros and fighting a couple of battles (and making her first kill) on the other. It's not even comparable. Aging of the characters is good idea in theory, but sadly it didn't have any follow-up in the show because characters in the show act much more immaturely than characters in the books.
  8. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    If the source material is something like ASOIAF, which is very very complex and complicated, then of course that the quality is linked to faithfulness. About early seasons, I'm not complaining about changes that were necessary, for example Tyrion's battle in episode 9 couldn't be filmed because they didn't have enough money. I'm talking about things D&D changed because they liked their ridiculous ideas more than the source material, and there is a lot of them, much more than people usually remember, and that is why I can't agree that first season is "fairly faithful". While it is true that the universe expanded a lot in AFFC, it is also true that the universe was expanding from the beginning. Even if I don't particularly enjoy all of the new POVs, for example Brienne's chapters aren't really favorites of mine, I think that there's nothing objectively wrong with the expansion and I like it much more than I don't. And I've seen a lot of readers who actually like Brienne's chapters for example. So again, there is nothing objectively wrong with AFFC and ADWD. So again, it all depends on the source material. There are source materials that can be adapted almost 100 percent faithfully. There are very faithful adaptations out there. Classics are usually adapted that way. Getsby was adapted pretty faithfully two times.
  9. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    How I'm not tolerating different views? What does it mean? I'm not sure what are you trying to say and I'm really not sure what does it have to do with me. Sorry to say but it looks like you wanted to argue with me for... reasons! In case you misunderstood, I wasn't talking about actual book quality of the last two books, but I said that there is nothing objectively wrong with them. You seem to be confusing the two so let me try to explain the difference: when something is objectively wrong, it means that no reasonable argument can be made that it's not wrong. You can still like it for your personal reasons but you can't say that complaints are unfounded. For example, you can like the wight hunt in the last season of the show, but objectively it is illogical and full of gigantic plot holes. Wight hunt is objectively bad. There is something objectively wrong with it. AFFC and ADWD are not that case at all. They may be weaker books than the first three (which is something I agree partially), but there is nothing objectively wrong with them. You hate Brienne chapters? Okay, your right. It would be better if you stated your reasons for hating them, but okay, you don't have to, again it's your right not to. But there is nothing objectively wrong with Brienne's chapters. It's not about personal opinions but about pure logic and reason. Drogo raping Dany. Loras shaving Renly. Ros. Littlefinger telling Sandor's story. Sexposition. Cersei visiting various people in The Red Keep just so she can argue with them for no apparent goal. Marginalization of direwolves. Need I go on? None of that was necessary. All of that was D&D's choice. And all of that made the story weaker. And please, in the future try not to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Thanks in advance. And also, try not to lecture me about things I didn't even mention. "There is no was to transfer a book completely 1:1"... LOL! Are you for real? That is the weakest argument ever. First, who's even talking about "1:1" adaptation. Second, just look at that list of those examples and tell me which of those changes was impossible to avoid. Let me tell you: none! Not a single one. So think about that when you'r defending the first season with weak arguments. So, when you say that "there is no way to transfer a book completely 1:1", is that your personal opinion or attempt to come up with objective statement? Hypocrisy much?
  10. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    You're twisting my words. What I said is that ASOIAF is best left unfinished if the remaining books even resemble what happened in the show. I have no problem if the remaining books are similar to AFFC and ADWD. There is no decline in the quality of storytelling, AFFC and ADWD are not objectively worse than the first three books, but they obviously don't deliver any closure and some readers are understandably impatient to get closures so they attack AFFC and ADWD, but objectively nothing is wrong with those two books. If you really read ASOIAF as early as you say then you definitely remember the same reaction to ACOK which was initially seen as a letdown for same reasons and back then some readers also criticized GRRM for unnecessarily prolonging the story and adding a lot of fat, but as soon as ASOS came out it became obvious that ACOK was simply a transition book and a very good one at that. What would definitely be decline is if any of the nonsense from the show ends up in the remaining books. Just like Littlefinger eventually betrayed Cersei. He'd betray anyone. But that's not what we discussed. We discussed his plans. "I'll first befriend and then betray anyone" isn't a plan. He didn't plan for Cersei to become the ruler of 7K, but when Ned refused his offer he adapted and acted. There is a huge difference between adaptation that tried to be faithful but can't be 100% faithful because of different medium or some other objective reason, and this "adaptation" we're discussing here. GOT never was a "fairly faithful" adaptation because right from the start D&D were changing things just because they wanted and for no good reason. Call it what you want but that is not a faithful adaptation, not even a fairly faithful adaptation. Sorry to say but this is a silly argument. You're not talking about adaptation but about fan fiction. Adaptation isn't supposed to be a different version of the original story. That's fan fiction, not adaptation. And please, I'm hearing about this "people want to be surprised" argument for years but it's just ridiculous. If you want to be surprised by adaptation I'm afraid you got the entire concept of reading/watching wrong. If you want to be surprised then you read or watch something new. Adaptation is something else. Adapting a story means translating it to a new form as faithfully as possible, and not changing it for the sake of shocking the audience. As other people already said, Talisa was a terrible change. She didn't make any sense to begin with and she was written terribly. And no, she didn't heightened the impact of the Red Wedding, unless you think that Robb as romantic moron is more compelling than Robb as king who desperately wants to reclaim his home which he lost because of his own mistake, and also unless you think that Cat wasn't really important character for that particular storyline (because when Talisa appeared Cat was relegated to secondary character in the show).
  11. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    This is also not correct because D&D started to diverge long before they ran out of books. Show lovers keep forgetting Talisa for example, because there is no reason for that change except that D&D liked it better than they liked the version from the books. Or what about Cersei's infamous firstborn who died an infant? That's episode two! Not only that they had some reason to include it, but also it only created logical problems later on, with the prophecy. There are many examples like these two from early seasons of the show, which prove that D&D didn't have to go off the books. They chose to do so. That fact and the end result speak a lot about their competence and sincerity. If GRRM's closure looks anything like what happened in the show in the last 2-3 seasons, he better not finish the books because he'd just ruin the story for good. It's highly unlikely that his closure is so stupid because nothing in the books so far even resembles the absurdity of the show, but if that sadly is the case then better leave it unfinished than publishing all that nonsense D&D put in the show.
  12. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    One more thing about this - you're forgetting that Littlefinger first offered the alliance to Ned but Ned refused, and only then Littlefinger turned to Cersei. So was it some Littlefinger's plan that realized? Of course not, he was adapting his moves to the situation and to other players' moves. That's what he's doing all the time.
  13. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Why? Because huge realms don't tolerate differences between their parts? I have to say that it's a strange statement given how diverse real realms were and are. For example in modern Italy there are huge differences between north and south in almost everything. Also while I've never been to USA it is often said that the south parts have much different mentality than the rest and that they are "stuck in the past" to the point that last year there was a big dispute over all those monuments from the civil war. And also it's not accurate that Ironborn are "centuries behind the rest of Westeros" because they actually have no technological disadvantage. They are different from the rest in a way Dorne is different from the rest. And also The North which is maybe more different than any of them. What is absurd about Euron's personality? I'm not sure we even know enough about his personality to find him absurd. And his... appearance? Really? Appearance in textual medium is problematic? And what appearance is that? You're confusing the show with the books to justify your claims. Sorry to say but that method hardly proves anything. It isn't really. While it is unlikely that for example someone like Tyrion meets Jorah and Penny in the span of few days, it isn't impossible. There is nothing "beyond the realms of possibility" in chance meetings in ASOIAF. The size of the continent doesn't really matter because what matters is the flow of the people. It's more likely to meet someone in the inn at the crossroads or at some other point on the Kingsroad, than in a tavern in King's Landing. And also, there aren't that many chance meetings in ASOIAF. Tyrion is the champion here with three (Cat, Jorah, Penny), but in all three cases everyone involved was logically present at the sight of the meeting and GRRM didn't have to do any gymnastics to explain how someone ended up precisely there. Actually I have to take that back a little, because Penny can be seen as such a case and her story up until the meeting with Tyrion really seems a little stretched, but on the other hand I'm not sure we need more detailed account of her past whereabouts.
  14. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    Yes, it's actually amazing how much GRRM explained about Iron Islands and yet people criticize him for writing them dysfunctional? Like, really? What is dysfunctional about Iron Islands? Unless "dysfunctional" means something very different, Iron Islands are anything but dysfunctional. But I guess some people desperately need a reason to badmouth AFFC or maybe even the entire ASOIAF. Anything that could obscure the towering superiority of the book compared to the show, right?
  15. StepStark

    [SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

    I was talking about Vikings as a culture. You don't have to nitpick my posts. When we talk about Huns, of course that it goes without saying that not all Huns were horseback warriors, but Huns are mostly remembered for their horseback warriors, just like Mongols too. Vikings are the main symbol of Scandinavian way of life in middle ages, just like Ironborn are mostly known for their sea raids, but that doesn't mean their societies weren't more complex than that.
×