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

[rocksniffer]

It's because there's no point to it. That's why it's called "gratuitous". And the fact that I'm a grown ass man who has seen a p**** or 2 in his life, I'm looking for something more with my dramas like... moving the story forward, as well as developing 1 of the 100 characters this show has brought into the fold rather than staring at boobies & wieners every episode. If I wanted that... I'd pop in a porno, which has more of a point than GoT sex scenes.... G'dammit!

was going to say thing smart-assed here about pussies, boobies and wieners... but instead i chose these two quotes because they sum it up so eloquently i could not hope to top them....

so there's no point in the sex scenes in the tv show? what about the books? would you do away with all them as well?

They show gratuitous sex for two reasons.

1. It's part of the story, it's part of the books, it belongs in the show.

It's HBO and tits make people watch.

You're admitting to having not read the books so (for starters if you haven't been entirely spoiled already please leave) real discussion here is pointless. You would be amazed how much the sex has been toned down in the show compared to the books. Some tits and dicks have been added to certain scenes where they haven't before (looking at you Oberyn, you horny devil) but it hardly mattered (in Oberyn's case it actually made sense) and if you really can't stand this kind of stuff you really shouldn't be watching Game of Thrones.

...finally, as a grown-assed man, i firmly support and respect the opinions voiced herein...though i won't claim to agree with all... and i must extend thanks to the bookies and HBOites for keeping it civil.... :smoking:

[Bilbo Baggins]

Essentially they should never end up at a place that close to both exit points on the wall within a similar time frame. It just doesn't make sense for that to happen. Could Bran have had an escapade at Crasters without Jon being involved? Sure, that could make sense.

Jon isn't there yet, he might be next episode but lets slow down. Bran and company may escape before Jon arrives. Realistically they'd be moving much slower too. Bran and company are being careful, they're not trying to make it somewhere in great haste, simply trying to make it somewhere. Meera is the only one physically fit to travel large stretches. Bran is a cripple, Jojen has his fits, and Hodor is a simpleton.

Jon will be riding to Craster's with great haste, and he'll be doing it on horseback. He likely won't be stopping for much rest or to eat.

It's not a perfect story arc, but I don't think two seasons full of Bran running around and licking his own junk as Summer will make for very good television. Bran does shit all north of the wall, even when he finds the Three-eyed Crow. Giving him some more interesting plot is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Everyone is so quick to criticize A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons but the moment the show starts to change the story to avoid the same issues you guys attack it like the source material was the greatest story ever written.

[Fragile Bird]

Sam never made a promise to Bran in the show.

Uh, yes, I know that. The whole point of the comment was he didn't tell Jon in the books.

My dearest Fragile Bird, i find myself disagreeing with the premise that making changes somehow lessens D&D's respect and understanding of the story...sure people always get annoyed...myself included...when a filmmaker changes important parts of a story ( i am reminded of Cujo and the fate of the boy)...but i do not think the books are inviolate. In fact i am of the opinion that several of the changes have enhanced my appreciation for the story and its rich texture.

...as for Robb and Jeyne, i didn't get that change but in the grand scheme i guess it hasn't impacted me that much. And like you, i also believe the journey is at least as important as the end result, if not more so, that being said i am not sure that my desire to read the final books has been lessened by what the show has changed or revealed about the paths taken by the main characters...

...just more mutterings from your favorite salty old asshole.... :smoking:

Don't get me wrong, I can see the reason why many changes were made, as Rockroi said, many make sense. People hated Ros with a passion, because frankly they used her for a few of those gratuitous sex scenes everyone is mentioning, which just got tiresome. But in the end we saw, through Ros, how utterly ruthless Littlefinger is and how sick Joff was. And D&D got their quotient of T&A in.

And oh my goodness, 471 posts, 'sniffer! At this rate you may be able to hit 700 by the end of the year - I told you to open some threads! :D

If I recall correctly, he never made any such promise on the show. That was book only.

Yup.

Should we worry too much about the fact that Jon knows about Bran? They might not meet. Jon might be led to believe Bran is dead in some other way, restoring things to roughly how they are. Or, in the books, Jon and Bran might meet in future. As they say, the roads may be different but the destination is the same.

Toft, my problem with this is the fact that we have a certain kind of character in Samwell. He's trustworthy and honourable and when he makes a promise...well, unless Gilly is all over him or he's told he'll be thrown overboard and will have to swim to shore...he can be relied on. Bran is on a mission, and as much as he wants to see family members, he did not want anyone to know he was alive.

I've got two points to make in regardes to the common criticisms I'm seeing in this thread.

1. Sam broke his promise to Bran and told Jon he is alive!

   Sam never made a promise to Bran in the show, in the books he made his promise to Coldhands and Coldhands isn't in the show. Not yet at least. Nobody ever asked Sam to keep it a secret so there is no reason to expect him to not tell Jon that his younger brother, whom is believed dead, is in fact alive.

   This doesn't mean Roose is going to find out. You guys are saying that because Jon knows Bran is alive Roose's claim to the North is lessened and Stannis' Jon Stark plan is pointless? Why would either Jon or Sam tell Roose that Bran is alive? And Stannis' plan was turned down anyways. I doubt Jon will be sending ravens across Westeros to let everyone know that "my crippled little brother is on the other side of the wall, so please don't try to steal Winterfell." That's ludacris and nobody would believe it. Besides, the Watch takes no part.

   There is nothing important in the books regarding Jon not knowing about Bran.

Yes, I know Sam did not promise in the show. :p

But you should re-read Jon's chapters if you think there's nothing important in the books regarding Jon not knowing about Bran.

No.

Plenty of changes from the book have been worthwhile; its when the changes are dead or convoluted that draws ire. Yeah, sure, some people are just the Ultra-purists and you can't satisfy them; they want a 50 hour season with a virtually unlimited budget.

My complaint is when the story is overrun by contrivance. Here its having Bran end up at this place that ... just so happens to be where Jon wanted the NW to attack? Quelle Suprise! And it just so happens that Bran was... right there....

:agree:

[WinterisAlwaysComing]

I am OUTRAGED and/or THRILLED by the changes from the books! The books shall NEVER be changed! Unless they are filler like A Feast for Crows, in which case CHANGE EVERYTHING!

[Bilbo Baggins]

But you should re-read Jon's chapters if you think there's nothing important in the books regarding Jon not knowing about Bran.

Oh yeah, he's really torn up about it and him not knowing was always a very heartbreaking thing for me. But all those inner monologues weren't going to make the show anyways. Will it actually have relevance to the plot is what I'm saying. Will Jon do something in the books that he would not have done in any other way if he had known about Bran? So far, no. Jon probably won't tell anyone, he'll turn down Stannis same as he did in the books. But this time his reasoning will secretly be because he knows he isn't the last son of Eddard.

Sam's promise was related to Coldhands more than it was related to Bran. Things will change as a result of Jon knowing, but well... do I really even need to say that?

[Fragile Bird]

I am OUTRAGED and/or THRILLED by the changes from the books! The books shall NEVER be changed! Unless they are filler like A Feast for Crows, in which case CHANGE EVERYTHING!

BITE YOUR TONGUE! I loved AFFC, because it provided so much history. And Cersei's POV!

Oh yeah, he's really torn up about it and him not knowing was always a very heartbreaking thing for me. But all those inner monologues weren't going to make the show anyways. Will it actually have relevance to the plot is what I'm saying. Will Jon do something in the books that he would not have done in any other way if he had known about Bran? So far, no. Jon probably won't tell anyone, he'll turn down Stannis same as he did in the books. But this time his reasoning will secretly be because he knows he isn't the last son of Eddard.

Sam's promise was related to Coldhands more than it was related to Bran. Things will change as a result of Jon knowing, but well... do I really even need to say that?

Everyone sees different things. :dunno:

[Devil28]

Jon isn't there yet, he might be next episode but lets slow down. Bran and company may escape before Jon arrives. Realistically they'd be moving much slower too. Bran and company are being careful, they're not trying to make it somewhere in great haste, simply trying to make it somewhere. Meera is the only one physically fit to travel large stretches. Bran is a cripple, Jojen has his fits, and Hodor is a simpleton.

Jon will be riding to Craster's with great haste, and he'll be doing it on horseback. He likely won't be stopping for much rest or to eat.

It's not a perfect story arc, but I don't think two seasons full of Bran running around and licking his own junk as Summer will make for very good television. Bran does shit all north of the wall, even when he finds the Three-eyed Crow. Giving him some more interesting plot is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Everyone is so quick to criticize A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons but the moment the show starts to change the story to avoid the same issues you guys attack it like the source material was the greatest story ever written.

It isn't interesting, it is poor writing. Anyway it doesn't really matter. Bran won't be doing nothing for 2 seasons. His story arch from the books is caught up by the end of this season, you can tell by the episode titles. There is no reason for Bran and Jon to have another near meeting, which will likely mirror their past one (Jon's attack on Crasters aids Brans escape mimics Brans presence that lends Summers aid to Jon so he can escape the wildlings). At least that is what I expect to happen.

The whole idea that Bran can move at the pace of a mile a day or less is silly. That is the pace he would have to go for Jon to be even remotely close in this timeline. Walk the length of a mall twice and you have that distance. Whatever disadvantages the party needs to overcome that isn't asking much for a days work. I just don't see how that can just be dismissed. And it doesn't even matter if Jon shows up a week later from Bran's escape, the timeline is just so poorly thought out. Jon was near death. The problem is that he had to be healed from a near death experience and following that he putzes around for awhile at Castle Black.After that, all of a sudden he is able to catch up to Bran in a few days or just misses him. Logistically it shouldn't happen or even be close. That is an oversight that shouldn't happen. Make Bran be captured episodes earlier, at least it could make sense within the timeline. It isn't a matter of changing things to avoid problems from the books. Bran isn't a major player in books 4 and 5, he has like 3 chapters total. If the show would follow his arch he would have 3 scenes of him walking/warging and end up with bloodraven.

I don't personally like this story arch of Bran, Ghost and Jon all to end up in the same place. I don't really want to argue that, because it is a matter of taste and will change person to person. But based on the timeline this meeting or near meeting should never take place. That can, I believe, be argued based upon the distances from the map and what time has transpired from Sam and Bran's parting.

[The Dragon has three heads]

It's tv, they need immediate stakes and semi immediate pay offs with characters put in risky situations.

The nights king is the true revelation here, everything else was hinted at, but not implicitly stated til now.

Craster-whoever he is, or who's blood he has, was either sacrificing to retain his position or was part of a pact that has been going on for generations.

Everything else doesn't matter.

[rocksniffer]

Uh, yes, I know that. The whole point of the comment was he didn't tell Jon in the books.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the reason why many changes were made, as Rockroi said, many make sense. People hated Ros with a passion, because frankly they used her for a few of those gratuitous sex scenes everyone is mentioning, which just got tiresome. But in the end we saw, through Ros, how utterly ruthless Littlefinger is and how sick Joff was. And D&D got their quotient of T&A in.

And oh my goodness, 471 posts, 'sniffer! At this rate you may be able to hit 700 by the end of the year - I told you to open some threads! :D

Yup.

Toft, my problem with this is the fact that we have a certain kind of character in Samwell. He's trustworthy and honourable and when he makes a promise...well, unless Gilly is all over him or he's told he'll be thrown overboard and will have to swim to shore...he can be relied on. Bran is on a mission, and as much as he wants to see family members, he did not want anyone to know he was alive.

Yes, I know Sam did not promise in the show. :P

But you should re-read Jon's chapters if you think there's nothing important in the books regarding Jon not knowing about Bran.

:agree:

as to changes and especially Roz, i not only found her to be funny at times but also she was a consolidation of all the working girls that were in the books...never understood why people hated but i never do...and i completely agree that she was very useful in revelations about several of the main characters, including Tryion, Varys and Theon early on...

...as to the post count you know sniffing around all the nuggets of bullshit wisdom i find in Westeros takes most of my time... :devil:

It's tv, they need immediate stakes and semi immediate pay offs with characters put in risky situations.

The nights king is the true revelation here, everything else was hinted at, but not implicitly stated til now.

Craster-whoever he is, or who's blood he has, was either sacrificing to retain his position or was part of a pact that has been going on for generations.

Everything else doesn't matter.

while i don't necessarily agree that nothing else mattered, i do agree that the WW reveal was very important, How IS Craster and his blood line involved and who knew...i get the feeling now that Morrmont knew the true nature of what was happening

...just this asshole's opinion of course... :smoking:

[Bilbo Baggins]

I don't personally like this story arch of Bran, Ghost and Jon all to end up in the same place. I don't really want to argue that, because it is a matter of taste and will change person to person. But based on the timeline this meeting or near meeting should never take place. That can, I believe, be argued based upon the distances from the map and what time has transpired from Sam and Bran's parting.

I don't disagree with you that Bran's location is not realistic. I tried to offer some explanation but as I've said regarding another matter in this thread, picking at a plothole looking for explanations only makes it bigger. That's all that is, it's a plothole. A quite minor one at that.

You say it's poorly written, but I counter that by saying A Song of Ice and Fire is also poorly written. Yes, I said it. A Song of Ice and Fire is a convoluted mess. It has way too many plot lines, many of which don't seem to be leading anywhere and a few seem to be leading to the icy zombie apocalypse which sounds quite boring compared to intrigue and political scheming. But A Song of Ice and Fire is also very entertaining, as most of it's meaningless storylines entertain me. Because that is what this is, entertainment.

Bran's chapters would be impossible to faithfully represent in the show, and any attempt would bore the audience more than Bran's chapters bored me. They're shaking it up with more danger, more action, more immediate pay-off. A system that works well for TV. A plot hole might crop up, and the show has never paid much heed to the geography. But the books aren't completely innocent of doing this either, teleporting ships anyone?

To restate my point as simply as possible, I don't think criticism is unwarranted and I don't think these changes were perfect. But I do think that you have to be honest and fair. The precious source material is not as good as purists will make us believe, and most of the changes to the show are not as bad as people act like they are. You have to take into consideration the medium, audience, and time frame when looking at what the show does and why.

[Ser Blake]

I don't understand how people are saying the stuff at Crasters is pointless. By showing the Karl drinking out of Mormonts skull you are reminding the viewer of what a monster this guy is. Same thing with the rape in Crasters. The point is to make the viewers hate all these terrible mutineers that way they when Jon and the Nights Watch finally arrive and kill them, the audience will be cheering for the heroes like they should be. Its no different than how the book handled the Mountain. When you hear the "gratuitous" story about him raping the inn keepers daughter the desired affect is that you will hate him even more and cheer heavily for Oberyn in the big trial by combat.

I just don't understand some of y'alls logic. According to some of you when characters randomly/luckily happen to be in the same location at the same time in the books its considered great writing but when it happens just in the show everyone says its contrived and lazy bad writing. For example:

Tyrion and Catelyn Stark at the Inn at the crossroads

Jon and Bran at Queenscrown

Arya arriving at the Twins JUST as the Red Wedding starts

Apparently fine and great writing but the potential of Jon and Bran meeting at Crasters is just too much to handle. I feel like people are confusing new and different with bad and lazy. The majority of the people complaining are book purists, and while there is nothing wrong with that you still need to try and remain open minded. I just think that too many people on here are treating the books and untouchable while ignoring the fact that they have faults as well.

If you want to complain then complain about the mutineers having captured Ghost. Because that is kind of fucking stupid. I'm assuming they used the same sort of trap they used on summer but he doesn't appear to be in a hole so idk. Honestly though I'm no really a fan of how they've handled Ghost as a whole. I know the direwolves cost a lot of money but still. In season 2 he just randomly ditched Jon and went back to hang out with the other Nights Watch people. I just feel like the show could have really benefited from a Jon/Ghost goodbye scene.

[SerArthurHeath]

AFFC is the best book but the worst book to adapt into the format of this show

[ground_control]

I just don't understand some of y'alls logic. According to some of you when characters randomly/luckily happen to be in the same location at the same time in the books its considered great writing but when it happens just in the show everyone says its contrived and lazy bad writing. For example:

Tyrion and Catelyn Stark at the Inn at the crossroads

Jon and Bran at Queenscrown

Arya arriving at the Twins JUST as the Red Wedding starts

Apparently fine and great writing but the potential of Jon and Bran meeting at Crasters is just too much to handle. I feel like people are confusing new and different with bad and lazy. The majority of the people complaining are book purists, and while there is nothing wrong with that you still need to try and remain open minded. I just think that too many people on here are treating the books and untouchable while ignoring the fact that they have faults as well.

The problem is that the book scenes you mentioned could be random, but Bran & Co at Crasters should NOT have happened...Sam met Bran and Co while fleeing from Crasters, knowing what had happened there...so when Sam helps Bran and Co get through The Wall, that's the one place they should already know not to go. And, when they do go there, they shouldn't be surprised at what they find.

Unless we're supposed to believe that when Sam led them through The Wall, he "forgot" to tell them about Craster.

[protar]

What I don't understand, is if they wanted some early-mid season action at the Wall, why not just have the Battle at Castle Black that actually happens? Having Ygritte's death here instead of the fun, but ultimately meaningless stuff at Craster's would have worked a lot better.

[Miodrag]

They show gratuitous sex for two reasons.

1. It's part of the story, it's part of the books, it belongs in the show.

No, gratuitous sex scenes aren't part of the books. As far as I can recall, each and every sex scene in the novels had some meaning and purpose, like depicting sides of characters involved. Were all of those scenes necessary? Well, hardly anything is necessary in storytelling, and one can argue that GRRM could've picture, say, Cersei's "I weep for my son but I didn't actually care too much about him" feeling in some other way; but, he chose her lust, which is totally legitimate, and also dramatically purposeful because of Jaime's return and his struggle to change. With so many stuff happening in the books, could be I'm forgetting something, but at the moment I can't think of any sex scene in the novels that was gratuitous.

You would be amazed how much the sex has been toned down in the show compared to the books.

Again, no. Just no. Percentage wise, sex scenes are much, much smaller than in the show. They rarely stretch for more than a passage or two. Truth be told, I think the writing in some of those scenes is GRRM's worst, but even with that, it's not a suffer to read through them. And there are fewer sex scenes to begin with. And it's all happening in big books, that contain infinitely more material (of all kinds) than a 10 hour TV season. And, once again, none of GRRM's sex scenes was without a purpose.

Some tits and dicks have been added to certain scenes where they haven't before (looking at you Oberyn, you horny devil) but it hardly mattered (in Oberyn's case it actually made sense) and if you really can't stand this kind of stuff you really shouldn't be watching Game of Thrones.

There, you said it. The show is practically defined by its sex scenes. There are sex scenes in "The Sopranos", "True Detective", "The Wire", but those shows aren't defined by those scenes. "Game of Thrones" pretty much is. And that is not a clever storytelling, let alone a brave storytelling. It's catering basic/primal/lower human needs in order to reach the widest possible audience. A good drama it isn't.

[Daske]

There, you said it. The show is practically defined by its sex scenes. There are sex scenes in "The Sopranos", "True Detective", "The Wire", but those shows aren't defined by those scenes. "Game of Thrones" pretty much is. And that is not a clever storytelling, let alone a brave storytelling. It's catering basic/primal/lower human needs in order to reach the widest possible audience. A good drama it isn't.

This is simply not true. All the millions of people watching around the world are watching for many varied reasons. There is the action, the politics, the relationships, the costumes, the scenery, the witty dialogie, the world-building - Game of Thrones does have some sex & nudity, and may even be famous for it, but it is hardly defined by it. It simply would not be surviving if the resulting small audience was there just for that reason and that reason alone. Take a look on Tumblr, Twitter or other blogs and you will see (or more likely ignore) what other things fans and viewers generally are enjoying about the show.

[protar]

This is simply not true. All the millions of people watching around the world are watching for many varied reasons. There is the action, the politics, the relationships, the costumes, the scenery, the witty dialogie, the world-building - Game of Thrones does have some sex & nudity, and may even be famous for it, but it is hardly defined by it. It simply would not be surviving if the resulting small audience was there just for that reason and that reason alone. Take a look on Tumblr, Twitter or other blogs and you will see (or more likely ignore) what other things fans and viewers generally are enjoying about the show.

From what I've seen, the general public's view on Game of Thrones is that it's filled with gratuitous nudity. I can barely have a conversation about it with my friends or family without some joke about the amount of boobs coming up. Obviously the show is watched for reasons other than the nudity, but the sex scenes have become quite memetic and that's not a good thing imo.

[Daske]

From what I've seen, the general public's view on Game of Thrones is that it's filled with gratuitous nudity. I can barely have a conversation about it with my friends or family without some joke about the amount of boobs coming up. Obviously the show is watched for reasons other than the nudity, but the sex scenes have become quite memetic and that's not a good thing imo.

Yes, I have found this too, but almost exclusively by people who are not actively watching it - they have just heard that the sex & nudity is what it's about, or have tried a couple and it's just not their thing anyway. I get the response 'I don't want to watch anything with dragons' about the same amount, and they won't listen either when I say there's much more too it than that. Not everything is for everyone. I'm just saying that the vast majority of viewers who are watching it are not watching it for the sex and nudity.

[protar]

Yes, I have found this too, but almost exclusively by people who are not actively watching it - they have just heard that the sex & nudity is what it's about, or have tried a couple and it's just not their thing anyway. I get the response 'I don't want to watch anything with dragons' about the same amount, and they won't listen either when I say there's much more too it than that. Not everything is for everyone. I'm just saying that the vast majority of viewers who are watching it are not watching it for the sex and nudity.

I agree, although my friends and family do watch the show and the jokes are still there. And it begs the question - if most viewers aren't watching the show for the nudity, why do D+D insist on scenes whose primary purpose is titillation rather than the more plot meaningful sex scenes in the books? In the show any plot relevant sex scenes are usually:

a.) from the books or

b.) provide some form of plot progression that is irrelevant to the sex, e.g the infamous sexposition.

[jons nissa]

.

The boss guy was "nights king". :)

i don't think he was meant to be the night's king. the guide's been changed to white walker and even ran said that it wasn't written by d&d. but then again, they may be waiting to make a reveal..... but for now, i suppose we should assume it's just a white walker.