(BEWARE SPOILERS) Book Lovers beware this episode was better than we expected

[Daske]

...It's not my fault that the show is this bad, you know.

Maybe take a look at the bigger picture and entertain the idea that the writing style is just not for you. There are millions of people of all shapes and sizes that love the show - we aren't all idiots (well some are!). When you say things like the writers are 'incompetent' when they have crafted one of the most critcally-acclaimed, downloaded, reviewed, talked about, blogged, finger-on-the-pulse shows of the last couple of years, you know you may not be taking in all the evidence if you are trying to stay objective? And trying to stay objective is surely the difference between constructive criticism and just moaning.

[Bilbo Baggins]

It's not whining, it's criticizing. Hardly the same thing. And look, you're criticizing my criticism. Even worse, you're just mocking it. But you're not whining. Just like my criticism of the show isn't whining. The way you're saying, it looks like any criticism you don't agree with is whining. But it isn't.

I don't think you understand how to properly criticize. You've stated over and over that the show is bad, bad bad bad. So you don't like it, fair enough. Then you go on to pick at every single thing you dislike. But you've already established that you don't like the show, so at this point all you're doing is whining about all the things you didn't like.

Criticism comes from people who want to enjoy the show, you clearly go into every episode thinking you're going to hate it and looking for shit to pick apart. You say we don't understand what criticism is, but the truth of the matter is you don't understand what whining is. Criticism that isn't constructive is just whining. What you're doing isn't constructive, you're just moaning over and over that the show is bad.

[protar]

Maybe take a look at the bigger picture and entertain the idea that the writing style is just not for you. There are millions of people of all shapes and sizes that love the show - we aren't all idiots (well some are!). When you say things like the writers are 'incompetent' when they have crafted one of the most critcally-acclaimed, downloaded, reviewed, talked about, blogged, finger-on-the-pulse shows of the last couple of years, you know you may not be taking in all the evidence if you are trying to stay objective? And trying to stay objective is surely the difference between constructive criticism and just moaning.

Let's not forgot though that D+D have an incredibly strong template to work with. If this was their own IP I doubt it'd get past the second season. D+D deserve a lot of credit for putting together a production of this scale and of this qualit, but I don't think they deserve much credit for writing a good story. That prize goes to Martin.

Fortunately the end result is still very good, even great television. But I feel people give D+D a bit too much credit for the writing. Just going off of Unsullied reactions (which I know is anecdotal) the majority of complaints spring from D+D's inventions, and the majority of favourite scenes are straight from the books.

[Frey family reunion]

Let's not forgot though that D+D have an incredibly strong template to work with. If this was their own IP I doubt it'd get past the second season. D+D deserve a lot of credit for putting together a production of this scale and of this qualit, but I don't think they deserve much credit for writing a good story. That prize goes to Martin.

Fortunately the end result is still very good, even great television. But I feel people give D+D a bit too much credit for the writing. Just going off of Unsullied reactions (which I know is anecdotal) the majority of complaints spring from D+D's inventions, and the majority of favourite scenes are straight from the books.

I'd agree with everything except for what the show is doing with Dany's arc. I think they are providing a more compelling story with Dany than GRRM has up to this point. There seems to be more forward momentum with Dany in the show than thee was in the books. Of course that could change now that she is in Mereen.

ETA: even though I am still pissed that they got rid of the Strong Belwas character.

[protar]

I'd agree with everything except for what the show is doing with Dany's arc. I think they are providing a more compelling story with Dany than GRRM has up to this point. There seems to be more forward momentum with Dany in the show than thee was in the books. Of course that could change now that she is in Mereen.

ETA: even though I am still pissed that they got rid of the Strong Belwas character.

I don't think there's really been too much change with Dany's story. Aside from the Dragonknapping Dany's story has remained reasonably faithful to the books and most of the changes have been the more understandable cutting and condensing of characters and events. Though I think Meereen will be handled differently with more of the killings on the street shown in detail, in an attempt to be more compelling.

Unfortunately I think no matter what D+D do - whether they stick to the books or make wild inventions - the viewers generally won't care about Dany's arc until she hauls ass to Westeros.

[Chebyshov]

I don't think there's really been too much change with Dany's story. Aside from the Dragonknapping Dany's story has remained reasonably faithful to the books and most of the changes have been the more understandable cutting and condensing of characters and events. Though I think Meereen will be handled differently with more of the killings on the street shown in detail, in an attempt to be more compelling.

Unfortunately I think no matter what D+D do - whether they stick to the books or make wild inventions - the viewers generally won't care about Dany's arc until she hauls ass to Westeros.

Which I'd say is a how many book readers feel about her arc as well.

As for cutting and condensing characters, I'm wondering if we'll be getting a Quentyn. I think her turning down a viable option in Westeros is important to include.

[protar]

Which I'd say is a how many book readers feel about her arc as well.

As for cutting and condensing characters, I'm wondering if we'll be getting a Quentyn. I think her turning down a viable option in Westeros is important to include.

I'm almost certain Quentyn will be in. He frees the dragons, his death may play a role in turning Dorne away from Dany and towards Aegon and I think it's important to emphasise any connection to Westeros they can.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I'd agree with everything except for what the show is doing with Dany's arc. I think they are providing a more compelling story with Dany than GRRM has up to this point. There seems to be more forward momentum with Dany in the show than thee was in the books. Of course that could change now that she is in Mereen.

ETA: even though I am still pissed that they got rid of the Strong Belwas character.

They're really setting Dany up as a glorious ruler, fans love her, everyone is expecting her to win. But Dany is speeding towards a cliff and nobody knows it yet. It's the same development as in the books, but they've played it up. The crucifixion was made very pro-Dany, they didn't fully show how awful the slave revolt was, the show is playing her up more. They're getting ready for a really hard fall, and it's going to come fast.

A lot of stuff the show does is good, not all of it (boy did they both Theon's capture and the sack of Winterfell) but a lot of it. Replacing Edric Storm with Gendry was a good idea, likely it was done for budget reasons but it made it easier to care for him. Replacing Roose Bolton at Harrenhall with Tywin was always a stroke of genius, it was a much more interesting dynamic and felt much more dangerous since she was among enemies and not among men who fight for the North. The Red Wedding was more shocking since Robb's wife was replaced with an actual character. The Purple Wedding was also better because it lacked the limited perspective so we could see other guests, also having Jaime interact with Tyrion more is great. Replacing Ser Illyn with Bron for Jaime's sword practice is way more interesting, the list goes on.

My point is the credit for the writing can't go entirely to GRRM, they show is making a lot of changes and a lot of them are an improvement.

[Rockroi]

Don't mind me, I'm just responding to another's comments. I just want people to know one thing: merely because one criticizes the show DOES NOT mean that those criticizing the show desire 100% strict adherence to the books. many many changes have been worthwhile. We criticize bad changes.

Also- I have NO problem with the "show" spoiling parts of the "book." Martin has had more than enough time to get this info to his readers; he has made different choices. If the show wants to use other parts of the yet-completed ASoIaF, I have no problem with that and I find that criticism to be void of substance.

I like a lot of the changes the show makes, but not all. The way they handled the sack of Winterfell, Theon's capture, and adding repetitive torture scenes was unforgivable. They fucked that up so bad. But say, replacing Roose at Harrenhall with Tywin made for a much more interesting dynamic between Arya and her captor.

I agree with these points. I also think that having Tywin interface with Arya was genius. Why? Because it was done well and it fused together two compelling characters in a relatively creative way.

That cannot be confused with Bran and Jon.

But no more contrived than Jon and his free folk just happening to cross paths with Bran at that tower, which DOES happen in the books.

But in the book (and to a degree in the show) it’s a complete freak of nature that the two groups get so close. Also, the two sides never actually cross, and are unaware of each other until very late in the game. And to me- it sort of makes the SECOND contrived crossing (or near-crossing) even worse; just how many times are these people “almost” going to meet up because, well, they are sort of close? I find that specific device to be really .... lame (no pun intended).

And they are really… not that close. Jon himself says its 60 miles from Castle Black to Craster’s. I mean, that’s the distance from Berlin to Dresden; to say that somebody in Berlin has a reasonable chance to run into somebody in Dresden is pushing it (and this is modern Earth with transportation advances etc). As far as where Bran ended up- he was at the Nightfort. The Wall has, like, 20 towers, all but three abandoned. In a line from West to East, Nightfort would be 8 and Castle Black would be 11 (in the middle). So, they are … close-ish, but hardly that. By clues given its been months since Bran was at the Wall. Bran has a huge head start on Jon. Even if you factor in how hard it is for Hodor to traverse the area carrying him, that's a huge head start. If Bran can do even a pedestrian 5 miles a day... for two months ... that's 300 miles. Is Jon's horse a jet?

Characters happening to cross paths, realizing it or not, is very common in the books. It's one of GRRM's favourite tricks.

Yeah, and if it annoyed me in the books, I usually said so. Frankly, I grow tired of the contrivance even in the books. See, I am not a strict “Book Purist” insofar as just because something was in the books, does not mean I like it. Sometimes it worked- Brienne running into that fucked-up Jester and killing him in AFfC; the Hound running into the Tickler. Sometimes, its bad- such as Arya running into Sam, but then not saying anything or Mormont running into Tyrion (in DwD); and other times its fucking baffling- Arya running into one of her father’s men in SoS… who then decides “No, wait, I’m a ‘King’s Man’ now…” whatever the fuck that means. Not everything in the books met my approval (for whatever that's worth), so if I didn't like something in the books, chances are if the show improved on it, I have said so.

All I'll say to this is, do you really want to bring up something lacking a sense of direction in A Song of Ice and Fire? Do you reeeeeeally want to do that?

I think I do! :cool4: Because it annoys me both in the books AND in the show. The books… holy fuckballs… DwD lacks direction. AFfC… lacks direction (to put it mildly). And I have said so. Lack of direction has been killing this story for… fuck… 14 years now…

I think you're overreacting, I don't see how replacing the chapters of Bran being cold, hungry, and day dreaming about Meera's bum with him being captured by the mutineers (which, in the books, were practically forgotten) turns a "complex story" into a simple one.

I could be overreacting (would not be the first time ;) ), but I respect Martin’s dilemma, one he has stated publicly many times– he wrote Bran too young and has no place to write him. So, he did the responsible thing: he squirreled Bran away (IIRC he has, like, 3 chapters in DwD) so we don’t have to pay attention to his “education” because it may be, well, like most educational experiences: fucking boring. So… don’t show it.

I know its extreme but… maybe the show had to bite the bullet and stuff Bran into a corner for 2 seasons and not really focus on him, then come season 6 or 7 get a new actor to play Bran (HBO has done it in the past, most notably with Rome and Game of Thrones itself is on its 2^nd Tommen and 3^rd Mountain- the show can handle that) and have a reintroduction. I think that may have worked.

But to insert these small, contrived, forced stories are not helping.

[Frey family reunion]

They're really setting Dany up as a glorious ruler, fans love her, everyone is expecting her to win. But Dany is speeding towards a cliff and nobody knows it yet. It's the same development as in the books, but they've played it up. The crucifixion was made very pro-Dany, they didn't fully show how awful the slave revolt was, the show is playing her up more. They're getting ready for a really hard fall, and it's going to come fast.

I thought the crucifiction scene of the masters with Dany and her Targaryen flag flying overhead was actually a tad ominous.

[Chebyshov]

They're really setting Dany up as a glorious ruler, fans love her, everyone is expecting her to win. But Dany is speeding towards a cliff and nobody knows it yet. It's the same development as in the books, but they've played it up. The crucifixion was made very pro-Dany, they didn't fully show how awful the slave revolt was, the show is playing her up more. They're getting ready for a really hard fall, and it's going to come fast.

Agreed, though to me the crucifixions were overly graphic, and I'm not sure they were meant to be very pro-Dany. Of course having foreknowledge of her plot may have skewed my viewing.

[Chebyshov]

I thought the crucifiction scene of the masters with Dany and her Targaryen flag flying overhead was actually a tad ominous.

Very much using Fascist imagery, I thought.

[Miodrag]

Maybe take a look at the bigger picture and entertain the idea that the writing style is just not for you. There are millions of people of all shapes and sizes that love the show - we aren't all idiots (well some are!). When you say things like the writers are 'incompetent' when they have crafted one of the most critcally-acclaimed, downloaded, reviewed, talked about, blogged, finger-on-the-pulse shows of the last couple of years, you know you may not be taking in all the evidence if you are trying to stay objective? And trying to stay objective is surely the difference between constructive criticism and just moaning.

So, in order to be objective, one must agree in general with the most common opinion? If that's what you're saying, then you're talking about conformism, not objectivity.

Objectively speaking, prevailing opinions are known to be wrong, especially in matters of art, and especially with movies and TV shows. I'm sure you'd agree that some movies and TV shows were/are overrated. Which means that, just like popular opinions aren't to be disregarded, they also aren't to be taken as an ultimate measurement of quality. And yes, GoT is very popular at the moment, among viewers and TV critics and whatnot. But, so was Lost. In fact, it was even more popular and praised. So was 24. So was Homeland. Each of them got an Emmy. And, you know what, they're all very bad shows. They may be enjoyable for some/many people (in fact, I did enjoy Lost enough to watch all the episodes), but they're ridiculous. Characters are flat, dialogues are bad, plots and twists are often nonsensical and cliched... They were big in their time, but now, only few years later, they hardly look monumental. On the other hand, The Wire had neither their numbers nor their buzz, and yet, long-terms, the legacy of The Wire is going to be lot stronger and more remarkable than the legacies of those shows combined. And what about The Sopranos, the show that actually brought high-drama to TV screens? How can we compare that legacy to the legacies of instant but short-living phenomenons like Lost, 24 and Homeland? True Detective, as of now, still doesn't have nearly the same impact on massive culture as those more popular shows had, and yet, in terms of writing and directing and acting it's head and shoulders above them.

All in all, my disagreement with the most popular opinion in no way makes me less objective than any of you who agree with the most popular opinion. Nor it means, of course, that my opinion is more valuable simply because it's more unique. If I'm right, that's because I make good points. If I'm wrong, that's because my points are bad. Simple as that.

And, by the way, I really don't think anyone's an idiot just because he/she likes this or that show. Liking is a matter of personal taste. One may like the setting, or the actors, or the music, or whatever. I try not to judge people for their personal taste. And I do know some very intelligent people that, when it comes to books or movies or music, have a very poor taste.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I thought the crucifiction scene of the masters with Dany and her Targaryen flag flying overhead was actually a tad ominous.

Ominous for us, the true intention of the imagery is clear. But first timers are seeing it was glory to Dany.

It's a trick. You look back at nazis and people who loved Hitler, they were caught up in the charisma and the propaganda. Made to believe something they wouldn't normally and do horrible things they would never dream of. The Jews are bad! They're lesser humans that need to be purged! Rats! People bought into it.

The masters are bad! They're lesser humans that need to be purged! Rats! People are buying into it.

[Ingelheim]

Don't mind me, I'm just responding to another's comments. I just want people to know one thing: merely because one criticizes the show DOES NOT mean that those criticizing the show desire 100% strict adherence to the books. many many changes have been worthwhile. We criticize bad changes.

Also- I have NO problem with the "show" spoiling parts of the "book." Martin has had more than enough time to get this info to his readers; he has made different choices. If the show wants to use other parts of the yet-completed ASoIaF, I have no problem with that and I find that criticism to be void of substance.

I agree with these points. I also think that having Tywin interface with Arya was genius. Why? Because it was done well and it fused together two compelling characters in a relatively creative way.

That cannot be confused with Bran and Jon.

But in the book (and to a degree in the show) it’s a complete freak of nature that the two groups get so close. Also, the two sides never actually cross, and are unaware of each other until very late in the game. And to me- it sort of makes the SECOND contrived crossing (or near-crossing) even worse; just how many times are these people “almost” going to meet up because, well, they are sort of close? I find that specific device to be really .... lame (no pun intended).

And they are really… not that close. Jon himself says its 60 miles from Castle Black to Craster’s. I mean, that’s the distance from Berlin to Dresden; to say that somebody in Berlin has a reasonable chance to run into somebody in Dresden is pushing it (and this is modern Earth with transportation advances etc). As far as where Bran ended up- he was at the Nightfort. The Wall has, like, 20 towers, all but three abandoned. In a line from West to East, Nightfort would be 8 and Castle Black would be 11 (in the middle). So, they are … close-ish, but hardly that. By clues given its been months since Bran was at the Wall. Bran has a huge head start on Jon. Even if you factor in how hard it is for Hodor to traverse the area carrying him, that's a huge head start. If Bran can do even a pedestrian 5 miles a day... for two months ... that's 300 miles. Is Jon's horse a jet?

Yeah, and if it annoyed me in the books, I usually said so. Frankly, I grow tired of the contrivance even in the books. See, I am not a strict “Book Purist” insofar as just because something was in the books, does not mean I like it. Sometimes it worked- Brienne running into that fucked-up Jester and killing him in AFfC; the Hound running into the Tickler. Sometimes, its bad- such as Arya running into Sam, but then not saying anything or Mormont running into Tyrion (in DwD); and other times its fucking baffling- Arya running into one of her father’s men in SoS… who then decides “No, wait, I’m a ‘King’s Man’ now…” whatever the fuck that means. Not everything in the books met my approval (for whatever that's worth), so if I didn't like something in the books, chances are if the show improved on it, I have said so.

I think I do! :cool4: Because it annoys me both in the books AND in the show. The books… holy fuckballs… DwD lacks direction. AFfC… lacks direction (to put it mildly). And I have said so. Lack of direction has been killing this story for… fuck… 14 years now…

I could be overreacting (would not be the first time ;) ), but I respect Martin’s dilemma, one he has stated publicly many times– he wrote Bran too young and has no place to write him. So, he did the responsible thing: he squirreled Bran away (IIRC he has, like, 3 chapters in DwD) so we don’t have to pay attention to his “education” because it may be, well, like most educational experiences: fucking boring. So… don’t show it.

I know its extreme but… maybe the show had to bite the bullet and stuff Bran into a corner for 2 seasons and not really focus on him, then come season 6 or 7 get a new actor to play Bran (HBO has done it in the past, most notably with Rome and Game of Thrones itself is on its 2^nd Tommen and 3^rd Mountain- the show can handle that) and have a reintroduction. I think that may have worked.

But to insert these small, contrived, forced stories are not helping.

I don't see any reason to do this...

[Daske]

So, in order to be objective, one must agree in general with the most common opinion? If that's what you're saying, then you're talking about conformism, not objectivity.

Objectively speaking, prevailing opinions are known to be wrong, especially in matters of art, and especially with movies and TV shows. I'm sure you'd agree that some movies and TV shows were/are overrated. Which means that, just like popular opinions aren't to be disregarded, they also aren't to be taken as an ultimate measurement of quality. And yes, GoT is very popular at the moment, among viewers and TV critics and whatnot. But, so was Lost. In fact, it was even more popular and praised. So was 24. So was Homeland. Each of them got an Emmy. And, you know what, they're all very bad shows. They may be enjoyable for some/many people (in fact, I did enjoy Lost enough to watch all the episodes), but they're ridiculous. Characters are flat, dialogues are bad, plots and twists are often nonsensical and cliched... They were big in their time, but now, only few years later, they hardly look monumental. On the other hand, The Wire had neither their numbers nor their buzz, and yet, long-terms, the legacy of The Wire is going to be lot stronger and more remarkable than the legacies of those shows combined. And what about The Sopranos, the show that actually brought high-drama to TV screens? How can we compare that legacy to the legacies of instant but short-living phenomenons like Lost, 24 and Homeland? True Detective, as of now, still doesn't have nearly the same impact on massive culture as those more popular shows had, and yet, in terms of writing and directing and acting it's head and shoulders above them.

All in all, my disagreement with the most popular opinion in no way makes me less objective than any of you who agree with the most popular opinion. Nor it means, of course, that my opinion is more valuable simply because it's more unique. If I'm right, that's because I make good points. If I'm wrong, that's because my points are bad. Simple as that.

And, by the way, I really don't think anyone's an idiot just because he/she likes this is that show. Liking is a matter of personal taste. One may like the setting, or the actors, or the music, or whatever. I try not to judge people for their personal taste. And I do know some very intelligent people that, when it comes to books or movies or music, have a very poor taste.

No, what I'm saying is that it should give you pause. Unless you think you are always right on everything, ask yourself why do all these people like it and I don't? What piece of this puzzle am I missing? If you are making absolute statements like the writers are incompetent, which is an extreme criticism, maybe question how can they be incompetent if all these people like it? They are giving many of us what we want - that sounds very competent to me! What I'm suggesting is be a bit more open-minded.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I know its extreme but… maybe the show had to bite the bullet and stuff Bran into a corner for 2 seasons and not really focus on him, then come season 6 or 7 get a new actor to play Bran

The problem with this is that people will forget why they cared about Bran. His "return" after two years with a whole new actor is the same as him not returning at all. TV especially has to keep relevant things relevant, that's why characters like Ser Dontas are cut right up until the point where they actually do something. You can't throw a character off the wagon for two years on TV.

If you are making absolute statements like the writers are incompetent, which is an extreme criticism

It's not criticism, it's merely making insults. Insults get nobody anywhere and just come off as whining since obviously none of the writers are hear to receive his insults. You can't go into a museum, call every art piece "absolute shit, the artist is incompetent" and call it criticism.

[Miodrag]

I don't think you understand how to properly criticize. You've stated over and over that the show is bad, bad bad bad. So you don't like it, fair enough. Then you go on to pick at every single thing you dislike. But you've already established that you don't like the show, so at this point all you're doing is whining about all the things you didn't like.

Criticism comes from people who want to enjoy the show, you clearly go into every episode thinking you're going to hate it and looking for shit to pick apart. You say we don't understand what criticism is, but the truth of the matter is you don't understand what whining is. Criticism that isn't constructive is just whining. What you're doing isn't constructive, you're just moaning over and over that the show is bad.

Thanks for making this reply a lot easier. You see, when you state something like this:

Criticism comes from people who want to enjoy the show

you clearly show that it is you who don't understand criticism. And when you state something like this:

You say we don't understand what criticism is, but the truth of the matter is you don't understand what whining is. Criticism that isn't constructive is just whining. What you're doing isn't constructive, you're just moaning over and over that the show is bad.

you prove that you aren't interested in reading my posts and replying to them. What interests you is to theorize about what is "constructive" in criticism and what isn't, instead of just proving my complaints are unfounded. Basically, you aren't interested in debating against people that disagree with you. Which is fine, I guess. I just don't know why do you address me then, because it is your posts that look like nothing but whining. But, truth be told, stranger things happened on internet.

[Greywolf2375]

...having Ghost locked up...

why is it interesting? The NW brothers know that is Jon's wolf. They know he is not one of them. They know that they have limited food...why are they feeding Ghost? Why didn't they just kill him?

It was a really good episode.

What I will always fail to understand is why certain people believe deviations from the novel lessen the quality of the show.

A. The books aren't perfect

B. They are separate entities

C. Some of this stuff is really, really cool

No one is stating A & B aren't true. And while C has been true in some of the changes, they also have butchered other pieces.

I quoted this because it needs to be seen. I love the books and would hate the show to overpass the books but sometimes purists get carried away with there neediness.

Inb4 insuing butthurt

it has nothing to do with purists, it has to do with good screenwriting, changes that make sense, making sure characters get portrayed appropriately....

Actually, GRRM has already told D&D all the ends to all the major plot lines (who - if anyone - will set the IT, what will the Starks, Targs and Lannisters end up being and doing, what's going to happen with the WW). So we can assume that the ending is going to be roughly the same, but lots of details along the road will be different.

So the only thing that is important is the destination? sorry, can't get on board with that. especially with the way the story is written, it is the journey (sometimes literally - Brienne, Arya) that makes the story so powerful.

If the show followed the book to the to the T... it would be more drawn out than it already is. Books are fine when the writer has free reign over character development.

and that is where many of the changes do get questioned - since there is such a rich background/story in place why the need to create new story lines, new characters, etc. absolutely there have been beneficial changes, but there have also been some that appear to have caused some key pieces to be cut.

The Show is NOT the books. If you want the books, plot point for plot point, then just reread them and call it a day (or week, month.... how am I supposed to know how fast you read?).

They call these "adaptations" for a reason. It's a TV show "based" off the book series.

and the point is? In the four years the series has been on I have seen literally no one state that they want a verbatim picture of the books on screen.

I get that many were disturbed by the last epi and the sex on the alter scene, and even though i respect everyone's right to an opinion, mine is that rape, child abuse and murder are part of this story, in the books as well as the show...so why did it shock anyone...in addition although Ghost avenging the mutiny was ok for the books, really getting to see what was going on and how the women were chanting, for example, made that whole part of the story a fuller representation of things i had only imagined...

as a fan of gratuitous sex on HBO for more than 30 years (anyone else remember that HBO used to only show R-rated films after 9 pm), what shocks me is that people are outraged by seeing things that the books never shrink from...GRRM describes sex in vivid detail throughout the books, so what's wrong with seeing it...

you even say it, there is a lot of sex in the books. So, why isn't that portrayed on the screen the same way? (sept) Why do we have to have additional scenes added in if there is plenty in the book? This isn't a one scene feedback - this is the build up over 3 1/2 seasons now with time being spent on scenes that seem to add little but focus on the nudity/sex. Why, for example with Crasters, can't they "show" us that this is happening (for example, as we pan into the building one of the NW is dragging someone off screen) rather than being "told" (boobs swaying in the firelight while bent over a table). The same discussions come up with some of the displays of violence....when Hugh of the Vale was lanced through the throat I thought they spent much more time than they needed on the blood pumping out of his throat. I'd have much rather had the initial impact, be shown the tip of the lance and then to the crowd and the description Sansa is given.

[Miodrag]

No, what I'm saying is that it should give you pause. Unless you think you are always right on everything, ask yourself why do all these people like it and I don't? What piece of this puzzle am I missing? If you are making absolute statements like the writers are incompetent, which is an extreme criticism, maybe question how can they be incompetent if all these people like it? They are giving many of us what we want - that sounds very competent to me! What I'm suggesting is be a bit more open-minded.

Yeah, it is true I may be missing something the rest of you aren't. But, funny enough, none of you is explaining to me what am I missing. You're just repeating it's theoretically possible I'm wrong. Thanks, but I know that. However, is there anything in the show that suggests my criticism isn't valid? Not the numbers, not the buzz, but something from the show. Am I missing something about TV Margaery, that would show she isn't a terribly written character that changes personalities from season to season? Am I missing something about TV Tywin when I say he's only saved by Charles Dance's charisma? Am I missing something when I say sex scenes in the show are usually over the top and not helping the story or the characters in any meaningful way?