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

[protar]

Really? Most of the Unsullied complaints I've seen are how Dany isn't in Westeros or how the WW don't seem like a real enough threat (I'd argue that was addressed on the show last episode). Still, I'll give you the Dragonknapping. Not sure I understand your Talisa complaints.

Don't worry about my Talisa complaints, believe you me your one lucky son of a gun that you missed that battle and I'd rather not bring up old enmities again ;).

But in any case, aside from the usual "when's Dany going to get to Westeros" complaints, there have been a lot of complaints about D+D's inventions, including Stannis' arc, Theon torture scenes, the gratuitous nudity, the already infamous Jaime/Cersei sept scene, and the convoluted-ness of Joffrey's assassination which made less sense on the show due to a few omissions (like Sansa and Dontos only just having "teamed up").

[SMF269]

I'm not sure why book fans like this episode so much.

We already knew what was happening at Craster's Keep after the mutiny. Ghost hunted down and killed some of the perpetrators. Getting Bran mired in everything there is nothing more than pointless filler, plain and simple. Gods help us if he and Jon are reunited. The titular scene - "Oathkeeper" - seemed shorter than Grey Worm's completely superfluous language lesson from Missandei. The overthrow of Meereen was anticlimactic, and Dany's mass-crucifixion of people she thought might have crucified the slave girls (coming soon to a Westeros near you!) was glossed over. That cheap CGI Targaryen flag was atrocious, too.

Thankfully, at least Saint Tyrion of House Whitewashing didn't give Jaime the idea to send Brienne after Sansa with Oathkeeper and Pod.

A week after the outrage over gratuitously and grotesquely mutilating a major character arc by having him rape one of the only persons in the world whom he loves and is loyal (if it wasn't supposed to be rape, then why did the writers and directors describe it as "rape" and "forcing himself on her," hm?), we have loads of gruesome rape at Craster's Keep. Totally necessary, I'm sure. It's not like there's more story to tell.

1) Non-book readers do not "know" what has been happening at Craster's Keep. IMHO the scene was a very accurate portrait of what would happen if murderers and rapists were left to their own devices with a house full of women who are powerless to stop them. It also shows that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Craster was a horrible human being for sure, but they were way better off with him than this lot. If the scene was disturbing to you to watch, that was exactly the point. Horrible attrocities such as this have and continue to go on in our world (not just in Westeros).

2) Bran's story line is probably the most boring out of all of them. I am glad to see that they gave him and the Reeds anything else to do besides aimlessly roaming beyond the wall. True, they could have come up with some other story line, but I for one am glad they are adding a little more tension for the non-book readers. I love the books, but GRRM most definately could have tightened them up. I actually skipped most of Bran's POV chapters and went back and read them after I finished the rest of the book.

3) The Grey Worm/Missandei scene was definately a good add. It was not about a language lesson at all. It brought you into the mind of a slave and how hard it is for them to remember what came before they were stripped of their freedom. You cannot have minor characters embedded into the story line with no indication of how they see the world or of what motivates them. It also shows that no matter how long the human spirit is made to smolder, it has the ability to reignite itself and make the journey back to what came before.

4) I get why you think the over throw was anti-climatic, but as we all know, budget constraints make it necessary to adjust the story into a more streamlined narrative. Showing Grey Worm arming the slaves, giving them the speech and weapons and then seeing how the slaves take action is enough for the viewer to get it. Again, Dany's story line is a bit boring in the books and it is just more of the same from Yunkai an Astapor so spending a lot of time on it from a production stand point does not make a lot of sense. As for the slavers, it does not matter if they crucified the children themselves or not, they are all culpable and therefore all guilty. The point of the scene was to show how Dany can be cruel and the way Barristan is a little worried that she may be as mad as the other Targs especially since we did not get the benefit of him telling her that upon his reveal (from the books). So it was not glossed over but rather to make you think about what kind of ruler she might become. Even book readers still do not know.

5) A flag is a flag. Not sure how epic they could have made that.

6) For the nine hundreth time, Jamie did not rape Cersei. If people want to be stuck in the "rape" vortex, that is fine, it only kills your narrative of Jamie, but as the scene between them this week proved, Cersei does not see it that way. I really do not understand why people want to twist it to justify what they perceive as a major deviation from Jamie's arc. He will always be saddled with duality. I am sorry, but Michael Vick can do his time, appologize and give thousands to animal rights charities, but he will ALWAYS be an animal abuser and although he may do good from here on out, it does not wash away his cruelty. (Side note: Huge Jets fan and I am utterly disappointed in their decision to have this f-nut represent the team.)

[Miodrag]

If I wanted a verbatim adaptation of the books I wouldn't bother watching. I have a spectacular imagination. I think book deviations are spectacularly interesting and are why I watch. Locke, the Others, a possible Bran and Jon Snow meetup etc etc are what make watching it FUN. I hate spoilers. If they completely adhered to the books it would completely be spoiling. Why bother watching if you want them to go word for word from the books? Whats the freaking point. If you want that then quit watching the dang show and quit complaining about deviations. Book purists make no sense to me. 'This is what I pictured and they deviated from it. Please do exactly what I personally envisioned. If you do otherwise I hate what you chose to do. But I'll keep watching.'

Sorry, but this attitude makes no sense to me. If I want to be surprised by a story - I consume a new story. Simple as that. Why would I want to be surprised by the story I consumed already?! There are countless other stories out there, so if the surprise is what you're after, any of those stories you still didn't consume is going to surprise you. As for adaptations, isn't the most logical reason to watch them, to see how other people took the source material you're familiar with? It's hardly the only possible reason, but the most logical one it probably is.

Thank you. I love GRRM but I don't look at him as a God like some on here do. He actually CAN be improved. Sure not every deviation is great but neither is every GRRM right turn. AFFC and ADWD are surely imperfect and I find it hard to believe anyone thinks otherwise. The stories can be improved. Apparently thinking so is a freaking sin. Are people excited to see a D&D Meerenese knot? I know I'm not. Or a dragged out Bran storyline? No thank you.

So, you actually don't watch it to be surprised, but to see the story that is possibly improved? Well, that makes more sense, at least. And it's more sincere. However, is there anything that can't be improved? Probably not. But, people usually don't go around improving other people's works. Especially not if they highly respect those works. Because, what I'd "improve" in, say, The Great Gatsby or The Godfather, might ruin those for you. So, I'd leave them as they are, since I do regard them as master-pieces, their small "imperfections" notwithstanding.

And, the most important thing, do you really think the show is an improvement of the books? Not this or that detail, but the show as a whole. Is the show as it is, better than it would've been had D&D restrained themselves from "improving" the story and stayed as close to the books as the budget and schedule allowed?

[sj4iy]

Not necessarily, but usually that is the case. Virtually all the complaints I've seen levied at the show from the Unsullied Threads across the web are the result of changes made by D+D. They've struck gold a time or two, but most of their deviations have been pitifully incompetent. Fortunately this change seems at least fairly exciting and despite a few logical discrepancies, the plot at least holds together for the most part (unlike Talisa, or the Dragonknapping). However I'd still put it on the same level as what happened in the books, rather than an improvement and as such I'd have preferred things to default to the book. That's how things should be if there's no real reason for the change.

The internet is an echo-chamber where the loudest people can be heard...but it's very rarely the case that those people constitute a 'majority' of the opinion. Ratings, piracy numbers and just the sheer amount of money that HBO is making on the show are all indicators that not only are people happy with what they are getting, they like it so much that they keep coming back and more people are tuning in. If I went by what 'people on the internet' said, I would think that everyone hated the all of the LotR movies, every Stark Trek show since the original and every Doctor Who episode since the 70's. Of course that's absurd, but it's what the internet is for.

[Daske]

But, people usually don't go around improving other people's works. Especially not if they highly respect those works. Because, what I'd "improve" in, say, The Great Gatsby or The Godfather, might ruin those for you. So, I'd leave them as they are, since I do regard them as master-pieces, their small "imperfections" notwithstanding.

Yes they do - they try all the time! Not sure if you are referring to the original books or films, but either way surely Coppola's Godfather improved upon the book (since I & II are considered by many among the best films ever made). Directors can sometimes do succeed in expanding or improving book-to-screen. I'd add Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes and Kick Ass as other quick examples of adaptations closer to the GoT genre that many will feel improved over the original materal. Obviously many do fail as quality work, but that is true across the board. There are plenty of examples where it has been an improvement. And pretty sure those directors often cite their love of the source material!

I'd agree most film-to film remakes are not as good as the original if that is what you are referring to specifically (Planet of the Apes again!), but book-to-screen is a much closer fit to what we have with the ASoIaF to GoT adaptation anyway.

[briantw]

And, the most important thing, do you really think the show is an improvement of the books? Not this or that detail, but the show as a whole. Is the show as it is, better than it would've been had D&D restrained themselves from "improving" the story and stayed as close to the books as the budget and schedule allowed?

I think that shows/films are very rarely improvements over their source material. That's the nature of an adaptation, and I don't think Game of Thrones is any exception.

The show was also never really in a possession to be an improvement on the books. They're too vast. There are too many characters, too much action, and too many ridiculously vast locations. It would be virtually impossible to improve on them in a visual medium without unlimited time and money and an ageless cast, none of which can be provided.

As to your second question, I honestly don't know. I think most book people would agree that some changes have been for the better and some for the worse, which is true of basically every adaptation. Overall, I do wish they would stick a little closer to the source material sometimes, but I also won't get bitter about them wanting to put a bit of their own stamp into their adaptation.

I think they've done a pretty impressive job with this show so far, and it only appears to be getting prettier and better with age. This season has been visually phenomenal thus far, and we feel miles beyond the cramped spaces and general lack of set-piece moments and beautiful vistas from the first season. It's not a perfect show by any means, but it is a generally good one.

[Blazfemur]

Don't worry about my Talisa complaints, believe you me your one lucky son of a gun that you missed that battle and I'd rather not bring up old enmities again ;).

But in any case, aside from the usual "when's Dany going to get to Westeros" complaints, there have been a lot of complaints about D+D's inventions, including Stannis' arc, Theon torture scenes, the gratuitous nudity, the already infamous Jaime/Cersei sept scene, and the convoluted-ness of Joffrey's assassination which made less sense on the show due to a few omissions (like Sansa and Dontos only just having "teamed up").

Regarding the Cersei/Jaime sept scene, and how "controversial" it's become. And this isnt directed toward you, but toward the sheer hilarity of it's "controversy."

Look, it's fucking Game of Thrones. When the series didn't blow up in it's popularity, you never would've heard a word about that scene because trueborn fans expected to see as much. Because Game Of Thrones has exploded in it's fanbase, in that explosion, you get the mainstream "sensitive" people who get offended over every. fucking. thing.

"No, no, that's not right at all. I dont agree with that at all."

Guarenteed, if GoT was still around for fans who just read the book, and not the explosion of mainstream media (and all the people that beg for apologies that get offended frequently) that come with it.

Trueborn fans know Gregor Clegane raped the fuck out of that innkeeper's daughter. They know Lollys was manhandled several times. Do I bat an eye? No i fucking don't, because GRRM has painted a picture of accuracy with the time period he writes in. Ramsay Snow even being alive, was Roose Bolton's rapey law.

Get over it. It's an HBO series, premium channel, at night time. If youre offended by it, maybe you should get your parents' permission before watching.

[Blazfemur]

P.S.- you know what i love? Take a look at the thread topics on episode 4. The majority of them, have (Book Spoilers) in front of the title of the thread. That makes me proud. Way to go, fandom. No place, for Unsullied. And that's how it should be.

[Miodrag]

Yes they do - they try all the time! Not sure if you are referring to the original books or films, but either way surely Coppola's Godfather improved upon the book (since I & II are considered by many among the best films ever made). Directors can sometimes do succeed in expanding or improving book-to-screen. I'd add Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes and Kick Ass as other quick examples of adaptations closer to the GoT genre that many will feel improved over the original materal. Obviously many do fail as quality work, but that is true across the board. There are plenty of examples where it has been an improvement. And pretty sure those directors often cite their love of the source material!

I'd agree most film-to film remakes are not as good as the original if that is what you are referring to specifically (Planet of the Apes again!), but book-to-screen is a much closer fit to what we have with the ASoIaF to GoT adaptation anyway.

Hollywood people do try all the time, indeed, but, fortunately, even with all its power and influence, Hollywood is just a small part of the world’s creative community. And, honestly, I’m not sure Hollywood respects anything.

The Godfather was better than the book for me, though I do know some people that still prefer the book over the film. Same thing with Blade Runner – the movie is much better than the book in my eyes (to tell the truth, I’m surprised Do Androids... was even picked for an adaptation, because it’s one of the weakest Dick’s books I read, but, as we all know, it did result in a movie classic). All of which suggests that these authors perhaps didn’t respect the source material too much, regardless of what they were saying in interviews. (And, as far as I can remember, Scott didn’t even read Do Androids...) They obviously had to like some parts or aspects, but it was far from the respect one feels toward the source material when adapting Hamlet or Anna Karenina.

Nothing is written in stone, as far as adaptations go, so there are various examples. I happen to think ASOIAF deserves the utmost respect and devotion. Perhaps some/many readers don’t, even if they do enjoy the novels very much, but I do, and for a number of reasons. Not only because it’s as interesting and addictive a story as any, but also because it goes deep into examining both human souls and human societies, and also because GRRM’s obviously influenced by Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Goethe, and works like already mentioned The Godfather (I’d also add Dostoevsky, cause I see such a resemblance between their respective characters, at least in terms of how passionate they are, but I have no solid proof for that theory, hell, I don’t even know if Martin ever read Dostoevsky). We can debate how successful he is in following their footsteps, but they are his obvious influences in creating ASOIAF. Which means, Martin’s ambition is not only to tell an extraordinary story; I mean, it is also that, and I love how unapologetic he is about the almost childish joy he feels in telling stories; but it goes beyond and above that. Looking through those lens, pure numbers and ratings wouldn’t satisfy me, if I was to adapt ASOIAF. D&D can be satisfied with whatever they chose, their goals are their goals, but, if given the chance to adapt ASOIAF, I’d try really hard to stay as close to the source material as possible. Truth be told, I’d do that with any adaptation, cause I probably wouldn’t even attempt to adapt something I don’t respect. I’d possibly take the premise I like from a story I dislike and develop it into a rather different story (a la Battlestar Galactica), but would never adapt the source material I don’t respect. And, if I respect it, than it would command me to be faithful. If for nothing else, then for those who are going to consume the adaptation before, or even instead, the source material.

There also another way – what Coppola did with Heart of Darkness. He adapted it into Apocalypse Now, the movie that is not unlike the source material, but, at the same time, is a completely separate entity. That way, even if you watch the movie first, as I did, it won’t ruin the reading of the book in any way, just like it didn’t for me. Hence, it’s not exactly an adaptation, but rather a whole new work that is heavily inspired by the book.

[rocksniffer]

i am truly enjoying how this thread is developing....

P.S.- you know what i love? Take a look at the thread topics on episode 4. The majority of them, have (Book Spoilers) in front of the title of the thread. That makes me proud. Way to go, fandom. No place, for Unsullied. And that's how it should be.

and this is my favorite comment....though one thing makes me shake my head....yes this is the place for unsullied, because with the books and the show you get the complete picture

...i started this thread because i am a huge book fan and a huge show fan...and i am sometimes dismayed that the book fans don't seem to like the show as much and i am disappointed by this...the show has brought the books to an entirely different audience that might have lived and died never reading one of the best series i've ever read...and frankly the show is one of the better adaptations of a book (or books) i've ever seen...

...the book lovers should at least respect the fact that now millions of people know GRRM is a great writer....that is good...

...carry on.... :smoking:

[The Abominable SnowOther]

i am truly enjoying how this thread is developing....

and this is my favorite comment....though one thing makes me shake my head....yes this is the place for unsullied, because with the books and the show you get the complete picture

...i started this thread because i am a huge book fan and a huge show fan...and i am sometimes dismayed that the book fans don't seem to like the show as much and i am disappointed by this...the show has brought the books to an entirely different audience that might have lived and died never reading one of the best series i've ever read...and frankly the show is one of the better adaptations of a book (or books) i've ever seen...

...the book lovers should at least respect the fact that now millions of people know GRRM is a great writer....that is good...

...carry on.... :smoking:

If anything,

It'll make Martin write faster. Thats +points

[Blazfemur]

i am truly enjoying how this thread is developing....

and this is my favorite comment....though one thing makes me shake my head....yes this is the place for unsullied, because with the books and the show you get the complete picture

...i started this thread because i am a huge book fan and a huge show fan...and i am sometimes dismayed that the book fans don't seem to like the show as much and i am disappointed by this...the show has brought the books to an entirely different audience that might have lived and died never reading one of the best series i've ever read...and frankly the show is one of the better adaptations of a book (or books) i've ever seen...

...the book lovers should at least respect the fact that now millions of people know GRRM is a great writer....that is good...

...carry on.... :smoking:

in those millions that like the show now, my point is, included in those millions are the people that claim theyre offended just for attention, and are hellbent on apologies for being offended. Meanwhile, they neglect to read the warnings at the beginning of each episode detailing "sexual situations, nudity, adult language," etc.

Don't get me wrong, I got into this series because of seasons 1 & 2. And then i took the responsibility, to reading the whole series over the course of 5 months, and then rereading for an additional 5 months.

It was a mere rant, it didn't even have a place on this topic, and for that i do apologize. It's discrimination on my part, and not toward show-only watchers, but for sensitive people who are only sensitive for attention and a sense of entitlement for that sensitivity. If youre offended by this show, you clearly haven't been paying attention.

[Miodrag]

I think that shows/films are very rarely improvements over their source material. That's the nature of an adaptation, and I don't think Game of Thrones is any exception.

The show was also never really in a possession to be an improvement on the books. They're too vast. There are too many characters, too much action, and too many ridiculously vast locations. It would be virtually impossible to improve on them in a visual medium without unlimited time and money and an ageless cast, none of which can be provided.

As to your second question, I honestly don't know. I think most book people would agree that some changes have been for the better and some for the worse, which is true of basically every adaptation. Overall, I do wish they would stick a little closer to the source material sometimes, but I also won't get bitter about them wanting to put a bit of their own stamp into their adaptation.

I think they've done a pretty impressive job with this show so far, and it only appears to be getting prettier and better with age. This season has been visually phenomenal thus far, and we feel miles beyond the cramped spaces and general lack of set-piece moments and beautiful vistas from the first season. It's not a perfect show by any means, but it is a generally good one.

Honestly, I'm glad you aren't defensive about the show, like many show-lovers tend to be (which, in turn, makes them aggressive and rude). Even if you and I mostly disagree, I have nothing but respect for you attitude. Unfortunately, many show-lover react angrily on the criticism of the show, so I usually don't have the opportunity to say this, but I do respect people who like the show, for whatever reasons. It should go without saying, but I respect their opinion enough to debate it, to challenge it. Just like I expect from them to challenge mine. Alas, some of them just don't want to, and instead they turn into personal attacks. It's as if the criticism endangers their love for the show. And if that's really the case, then their love is not so strong, most probably, no matter how loudly they proclaim it.

That being said, I respectfully disagree that the show is generally a good one. I'd put it into the same category with Lost, The X-Files, 24, Homeland, Dexter... Meaning: certainly watchable, but far from masterpiece. Such products are always dependent on a personal taste. If they satisfy the personal taste of a large number of viewers, they are successful. If not, they aren't. But, in my eyes, that's not good enough. Especially if you're adapting the source material that already transcended the genre boundaries. ASOIAF is read and adored by numerous readers that aren't big on fantasy. I'm one of those. It offers so much more than crazy action and various settings. Just like The Sopranos caught the attention of many viewers that aren't interested in mafia sagas, and just like True Detective attracted viewers that doesn't care about serial killers (the author himself said he isn't interested in the genre at all), and just like The Wire is adored even by those viewers that don't particularly like cop dramas, that's what I think an adaptation of ASOIAF should be. And even better, because, honestly, no story of this strength and quality ever hit the screens. Not by a large margin. If your ambition is to create the best TV show ever, then ASOIAF is the source material from your dreams. And the best part is, the audience would love it. No need for those "some things don't look so good on screen" excuses I hear all the time. The budget can be limiting, of course, but, some often cited "adaptation rules" aren't. Even if you take all the not-screen-friendly stuff out of ASOIAF, you're still left with more than enough for a TV show that would end TV shows. And I'm pretty sure a lot of stuff that people like to peg as "inappropriate for screens", is actually very screen-friendly, and definitely more screen-friendly than many of the changes we saw. As I said in some other thread, Arya's Harrenhal days are very cinematic, much more so than what we got in the show. Her conversation with Roose is certainly not a bit less cinematic than her TV conversations with Tywin, and it's much more important for the narrative and themes.

So, I can't put GoT into the same category with The Sopranos, The Wire and True Detective. In fact, we're having this conversation only because of the books. Without them, I don't think I'd watch the show after the second season. Can't be sure, of course, but, based on my experience with other shows, I'd quit after so much sub-par writing in that season. That's about the quality. As for the faithfulness, I'm honestly surprised when people say the show is faithful to the books. It simply isn't. Ever since the first season, you have like 3-4 scenes taken from the books per episode. The rest is either heavily changed, or completely invented. Not to mention how many iconic lines they cut, even in the first season. All in all, probably more than the half of show time is authentic TV material. Whatever this adaptation is, it isn't faithful. And the reason for that is not money, nor time, nor "what works on screen" rules, but what you rightfully recognize: D&D's desire to put a bit of their own stamp. But, there we also disagree, because I strongly dislike the way they're putting their stamp here. There are other ways to do the same. Cogman managed to do it in his episode in Season 2, with "Theon's burning the letter" scene, and with Tyrion's trick on Pycelle, Varys and Littlefinger - he adapted the stuff from the book into something more suited for TV, but he preserved the tone and the spirit of the book. That's what smart adapting looks like, and it also left his stamp, as evidenced by almost universal praise for his work in that episode.

[Daske]

...

That being said, I respectfully disagree that the show is generally a good one. I'd put it into the same category with Lost, The X-Files, 24, Homeland, Dexter... Meaning: certainly watchable, but far from masterpiece. Such products are always dependent on a personal taste. If they satisfy the personal taste of a large number of viewers, they are successful. If not, they aren't. But, in my eyes, that's not good enough. Especially if you're adapting the source material that already transcended the genre boundaries. ASOIAF is read and adored by numerous readers that aren't big on fantasy. I'm one of those. It offers so much more than crazy action and various settings. Just like The Sopranos caught the attention of many viewers that aren't interested in mafia sagas, and just like True Detective attracted viewers that doesn't care about serial killers (the author himself said he isn't interested in the genre at all), and just like The Wire is adored even by those viewers that don't particularly like cop dramas, that's what I think an adaptation of ASOIAF should be.

...

You miss the bigger picture here. The book series was popular before the show and yes it did break new ground, but most of its fans were still those that generally read fantasy. Many more people not experienced with fantasy literature or televesion started watching the show because of word of mouth about the show and started reading the books after being influenced by the show. Yes, the books transcended boundaries and grabbed some non-genre fans, but nowhere near as many as the show has.

As with most of your points you do the show a disservice because you are obsessed by how good you think the books are (and most of us do like the books very much). But no adapatation is going to make you happy, so your position seems to be that because it can't ever be a perfect adaptation then the show should never have been made. Forget the books for a second - there may not be a better fantasy series on TV for another twenty years! Get some perspective and you may find you can enjoy the show a little better.

As a great man-fish once said 'if you're as close as you can get to a bottle of Baileys without getting your eye wet then you're just painting a creamy piece of paper'. Or something like that, I'm sure there was a moral in there somewhere.

[Miodrag]

^You make quite a lot of assumptions about me. Not that I mind really, but have to tell you, you're very wrong. Especially if you think I'm the one who lacks some perspectives.

For one, I don't consume stories with an agenda in mind. I'm not trying to like or dislike them. It would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? Why would I force myself to like or dislike anything? I'd only loose perspectives that way. The "job" of a viewer is to like or dislike the material, not to try to like or dislike it. I didn't read the books with some desire to love them. It just happened, because they're great. Also, I didn't start watching the show with some desire to like or dislike it. I had certain expectations, but all based on previous experiences with great HBO's dramas - nothing extraordinary. No agenda whatsoever. And my expectations influence my impression on the show much less than show-lovers' expectations influence theirs, it seems. Season 1 was below my expectations too, but I didn't dislike it. I wasn't fascinated with it like many were, but it wasn't bad. It didn't make me unhappy. I do manage my expectations just fine, thanks.

As for a perfect adaptation that will never happen - what kind of an excuse is that?! It's not perfection I'm looking for. If it was, nothing would ever please me. It's just a straw-man argument show-lovers use all the time. No, perfection is not the golden standard I hold the show against. The show isn't bad because it doesn't compare well against some perfect image I created in my head. It's bad because of the writing, dialogue, plots, characterization, often sub-par directing... With the resources they have, and with the source material they're adapting, they could've done an infinitely better job. Whether they should have or not, is on them and their supervisors from HBO, not on me. But it is on me and you and the rest of the audience, to analyze could they realistically make a better show, or not.

You enjoy the show? Fine! I have nothing against it. Why would I? Good for you, honestly. But, for someone who argues the show is good, you rely on the numbers too much and too often. GoT is hardly the first popular show ever. But popularity doesn't equal quality. If you're saying GoT is as good as those other insanely popular shows, that's something I can agree with. And it satisfies you? Once again: good for you. But it doesn't have to satisfy me. And it has nothing to do with my expectations from the source material. I disliked any number of insanely popular shows, even though they weren't based on some books I read. As I said numerous times, I'd probably quit the show long ago, if it wasn't for the books, so if anything, the books help the show, in my case at least.

And what's wrong with me respecting the books more than you do? I mean, if you think the show as it is represents ASOIAF faithfully, it probably suggests you don't respect the novels as much as I do. Which is fine, really. You don't have to. I'm not saying you're lacking some perspective, or that you aren't open-minded enough to enjoy the books. Like great many other ASOIAF admirers, I present my case when books are discussed, but that's it. I don't go around claiming people who don't like the books as much as I am are lacking a perspective or two. It would've been, I don't know, arrogant? And, truth be told, there are perspectives to be overlooked when books are concerned. I didn't figure out R+L=J on my own. I'm certainly glad someone else showed me that perspective, that angle, that layer of the story. But the difference is, that's the perspective from the story. It has nothing to do with fantasy books, nor genres, nor literature, nor whatever. So, if you want to tell me about perspectives from the show I'm possibly missing, I'm all ears. But, perspectives that deal with TV industry or its future are of no importance in this discussion, because: 1) I'm very well aware of those, 2) I don't see why would I give a damn about them, and 3) they influence the quality of the show we're analyzing in no way.

[Daske]

. So, if you want to tell me about perspectives from the show I'm possibly missing, I'm all ears.

OK, I'll bite - I'd say you were missing 'heart'. When you are analysing every every second of every scene and comparing it to every word on every page, you are missing the point of it - it's not meant to treated as a historical documentory, it's not meant to be treated as a literature studies course - it's meant to be entertaining. No more, no less.

[ToTheWolves]

If I wanted a verbatim adaptation of the books I wouldn't bother watching. I have a spectacular imagination. I think book deviations are spectacularly interesting and are why I watch. Locke, the Others, a possible Bran and Jon Snow meetup etc etc are what make watching it FUN. I hate spoilers. If they completely adhered to the books it would completely be spoiling. Why bother watching if you want them to go word for word from the books? Whats the freaking point. If you want that then quit watching the dang show and quit complaining about deviations. Book purists make no sense to me. 'This is what I pictured and they deviated from it. Please do exactly what I personally envisioned. If you do otherwise I hate what you chose to do. But I'll keep watching.'

Lol! Best post I've ever read.

[ToTheWolves]

^You make quite a lot of assumptions about me. Not that I mind really, but have to tell you, you're very wrong. Especially if you think I'm the one who lacks some perspectives.

For one, I don't consume stories with an agenda in mind. I'm not trying to like or dislike them. It would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? Why would I force myself to like or dislike anything? I'd only loose perspectives that way. The "job" of a viewer is to like or dislike the material, not to try to like or dislike it. I didn't read the books with some desire to love them. It just happened, because they're great. Also, I didn't start watching the show with some desire to like or dislike it. I had certain expectations, but all based on previous experiences with great HBO's dramas - nothing extraordinary. No agenda whatsoever. And my expectations influence my impression on the show much less than show-lovers' expectations influence theirs, it seems. Season 1 was below my expectations too, but I didn't dislike it. I wasn't fascinated with it like many were, but it wasn't bad. It didn't make me unhappy. I do manage my expectations just fine, thanks.

As for a perfect adaptation that will never happen - what kind of an excuse is that?! It's not perfection I'm looking for. If it was, nothing would ever please me. It's just a straw-man argument show-lovers use all the time. No, perfection is not the golden standard I hold the show against. The show isn't bad because it doesn't compare well against some perfect image I created in my head. It's bad because of the writing, dialogue, plots, characterization, often sub-par directing... With the resources they have, and with the source material they're adapting, they could've done an infinitely better job. Whether they should have or not, is on them and their supervisors from HBO, not on me. But it is on me and you and the rest of the audience, to analyze could they realistically make a better show, or not.

You enjoy the show? Fine! I have nothing against it. Why would I? Good for you, honestly. But, for someone who argues the show is good, you rely on the numbers too much and too often. GoT is hardly the first popular show ever. But popularity doesn't equal quality. If you're saying GoT is as good as those other insanely popular shows, that's something I can agree with. And it satisfies you? Once again: good for you. But it doesn't have to satisfy me. And it has nothing to do with my expectations from the source material. I disliked any number of insanely popular shows, even though they weren't based on some books I read. As I said numerous times, I'd probably quit the show long ago, if it wasn't for the books, so if anything, the books help the show, in my case at least.

And what's wrong with me respecting the books more than you do? I mean, if you think the show as it is represents ASOIAF faithfully, it probably suggests you don't respect the novels as much as I do. Which is fine, really. You don't have to. I'm not saying you're lacking some perspective, or that you aren't open-minded enough to enjoy the books. Like great many other ASOIAF admirers, I present my case when books are discussed, but that's it. I don't go around claiming people who don't like the books as much as I am are lacking a perspective or two. It would've been, I don't know, arrogant? And, truth be told, there are perspectives to be overlooked when books are concerned. I didn't figure out R+L=J on my own. I'm certainly glad someone else showed me that perspective, that angle, that layer of the story. But the difference is, that's the perspective from the story. It has nothing to do with fantasy books, nor genres, nor literature, nor whatever. So, if you want to tell me about perspectives from the show I'm possibly missing, I'm all ears. But, perspectives that deal with TV industry or its future are of no importance in this discussion, because: 1) I'm very well aware of those, 2) I don't see why would I give a damn about them, and 3) they influence the quality of the show we're analyzing in no way.

Oh I get it..you're saying you could do a far way better job if you had the resources.

[Miodrag]

OK, I'll bite - I'd say you were missing 'heart'. When you are analysing every every second of every scene and comparing it to every word on every page, you are missing the point of it - it's not meant to treated as a historical documentory, it's not meant to be treated as a literature studies course - it's meant to be entertaining. No more, no less.

But, if it's meant to be entertaining - no more, no less - then I'm hardly missing some heart. Stories with 'hearts' are usually more ambitious than to be entertaining. By the way, I'm not analyzing "every second of every scene and comparing it to every word on every page". Never did that. Don't know where did you get that idea. Nor do I want the show to be treated as historical documentary, or as a literature course.

And please stop speculating about what I want. You're doing a very poor job with that. Perhaps it would be more productive to explain what is this heart I'm possibly missing. I'm curios, honestly. It wouldn't be the first time someone opens my eyes about something. Just leave aside your speculations about what I want, and try to explain what I'm missing from the show.

[Miodrag]

Oh I get it..you're saying you could do a far way better job if you had the resources.

You figured it out so quickly? You're good, man, really good.