Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[King of the Road]

So when has awards made something a fact and when has a award been something other than a opinion?

Well to be fair an award is a collection of people's opinions, mainly critics. In that sense it's one of the better ways of judging a show's quality, particularly when one reads an unsullied's review of the show, which are sadly rare these days.

[Grayven]

I try to avoid comparing the books to the show. Different medium, different limitations.

IMO, the Ice and Fire sequence of novels is in the top 500 of all literary works, and HBO Game of Thrones is top 25 in TV history.

[Yojimbo]

Well to be fair an award is a collection of people's opinions, mainly critics. In that sense it's one of the better ways of judging a show's quality, particularly when one reads an unsullied's review of the show, which are sadly rare these days.

Thank you, am not trying to say because GoT has all these awards and I don't like it, then it does not deserve these awards. Just saying because awards are just opinions it doesn't make something a fact.

[sj4iy]

Well as I said am not going to argue over opinion, if that why you like it that why you like that why you like it. I do get the streamlined point and can see how someone could like it for that, have no idea how any one can think this show is 'basically the same as the books just with out the fat' though...

So you are saying then that 'GoT is a critically acclaimed success with outstanding ratings' (which I agree with), therefore in your opinion making it one of the best shows on tv? (which I don't agree with)But didn't you say;

So when has awards made something a fact and when has a award been something other than a opinion?

No, it's not MY opinion. It's the opinion of thousands of people- critics, authors, filmmakers, and actors- to give this show many awards, therefore making it one of the top nominated and award-winning show on tv.

You are trying to twist my words to say that I'm using these awards to back up my opinion that it's better than the books when I said no such thing. I wouldn't care if it hadn't won one award, I would still love it and still would watch it and still would like it better than the books.

I gave the award information as a counter-argument to the 'the show has been dumbed down' statement- GoT is one of the most critically successful shows on tv right now.

[Yojimbo]

No, it's not MY opinion. It's the opinion of thousands of people- critics, authors, filmmakers, and actors- to give this show many awards, therefore making it one of the top nominated and award-winning show on tv.

You are trying to twist my words to say that I'm using these awards to back up my opinion that it's better than the books when I said no such thing. I wouldn't care if it hadn't won one award, I would still love it and still would watch it and still would like it better than the books.

I gave the award information as a counter-argument to the 'the show has been dumbed down' statement- GoT is one of the most critically successful shows on tv right now.

Ok, so what your saying then is because the show has lots of awards (a opinion as you said yourself) this is proof that the show is not dumbed down from the books? Did GoT win "Least dumbed down book to show" award or something? :rofl:

Also me and I think is safe to say Miodrag are still awaiting your answer on how you can think Sandor doesn't show sympathy in the books and how he does in the show. I take it your not going to respond to the other questions I asked you, being as you seem to be hang up on using awards as facts/proof..........

[Annara Snow]

The Hound is way better than he ever was in the books. Adding a sympathetic side to him doesn't ruin his character, it expanded on it.

I think I speak for all of us when I say 'Huh?'.

(BTW kudos if you can recognize the quote. It's originally from a 1997 episodes of one of the best TV shows of all time; contrary to what Google/Goodreads says, which puts it as a quote from a 2007 book with a title very similar to another, very memorable episode of the same show.)

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

The books are much better, obviously.

While I do have some gripes with the show, it's normally very good. All things considered, pulling it off to the extent that they have is quite the achievement.

Nope, I'm simply defending the show against people who think that it's been 'dumbed down' from the books.

Wait, are you saying that it hasn't been dumbed down at all? They've mostly done a good job of staying faithful (forgetting about things like the stolen dragons fiasco), but they can't fit everything in, so a lot of stuff loses depth and has to be made more obvious for the TV audience. It's unavoidable with books this size.

[Florina Laufeyson]

Robb?! Really? How could you possibly miss the contagious nature of a storytelling disaster called Talisa? After she was introduced, I honestly can't see how can anyone think TV Robb is "better" than book-Robb. TV Robb is a joke, a story and a character borrowed from some some teenage show a la Beverly Hills.

TV Margaery has more screen-time than her book counterpart, of course, but does it mean she's more detailed? Hardly. TV Marg is so shallow, and written so inconsistently, that the character seems to be more influenced by Natalie Dormer's earlier roles than by either GOT or ASOIAF.

And no, they didn't put the world of ASOIAF into a visual format. They missed so much, and they replaced that with so much of their own stuff, I'm not even sure GOT qualifies as an adaptation any more. It's not even "based on", as it says in the intro. "Inspired by" - that would be the most adequate description.

Yeah ok, whatever, chumpy.

You are blaming Talisa for Robb being more fleshed out and us seeing more of him? Ok. Like its a bad thing he got some character development that we actually see instead of hear from Cat.

Margaery is actually quite nuanced on the show, we are just seeing how she interacts and not seeing her through someone else's eyes. All im hearing is your purist opinion.

I am so glad the TV show exists though, it's wonderful television despite the deviations from the series, of course I criticise parts of it, but over all, I'm glad that it exists.

Yeah man. This fandom is among the most joyless ive ever encountered. The show exists and i love that cuz without it, i wouldnt have been arsed to even follow this story.

Ok, so what your saying then is because the show has lots of awards (a opinion as you said yourself) this is proof that the show is not dumbed down from the books? Did GoT win "Least dumbed down book to show" award or something?

:rolleyes: Shes saying that critical acclaim doesnt lie. Objectively bad shows/film dont win awards multiple times over. I dont like the movie Titanic at all, but objectively, its not an awful film.

And no, the show doesnt dumb down everything. When transitioning certain plot points into visual media, some things wind up being more...in yer face than they would be in the original media. Some things could stand to be a bit more subtle (like Loras), but the entirety of the story is, in no way, completely dumbed down.

At this point, i think people are just pissy for the sake of it and want to whinge cuz the show doesnt meet some ridiculous standard that cannot be realistically achieved. That, and people want to be offended by something.

[Miodrag]

No, it's not MY opinion. It's the opinion of thousands of people- critics, authors, filmmakers, and actors- to give this show many awards, therefore making it one of the top nominated and award-winning show on tv.

You are trying to twist my words to say that I'm using these awards to back up my opinion that it's better than the books when I said no such thing. I wouldn't care if it hadn't won one award, I would still love it and still would watch it and still would like it better than the books.

I gave the award information as a counter-argument to the 'the show has been dumbed down' statement- GoT is one of the most critically successful shows on tv right now.

This doesn't make any sense, truth be told. How do awards prove the show wasn't dumbed down? Let's say you ask from Yojimbo and myself to pick the best fantasy show in this century; it's very possible, maybe even the most probable, that our little jury would choose GOT; I find other fantasy shows to be totally ridiculous, and Yojimbo is probably not a stranger to such an opinion; so, we'd give the award to GOT; but, we'd still think it's dumbed down, because, in fact it is dumbed down compared to its source material. Awards simply mean that the members of the jury think the show is better than other shows GOT competed against. It can be result of show's quality, or of weak competition, or fluke, but I don't see what that has to do with dumbing down.

[Hovis_Muttonchops]

I think the show is one of the best adaptations of a book for movie or tv I've come across. The changes make sense, and I can't see that books and show won't reach the same conclusions even if the route is a little different.

The casting and portrayals have been superb, but for me, the books are just the best fantasy I've ever read (and, at pushing 50, I've read a lot over the years!) However good the show is, and can get, it'll never get anywhere near the books for sheer scope and imagination.

[ground_control]

The books are much better, but that's not surprising, since they were written by one person who is a better writer than the ones writing the show. Also, very few adaptations ever equal (much less surpass) the original material -- but that goes both ways. Had the show been the original material, any novelization of it would probably be weaker than the show, and definitely weaker than the books.

That said, just because the books are better than the show doesn't mean that the show isn't good. Even with all of its flaws (and this season is shaping up to be worse than Season 2), it's still as good or better than almost everything else on tv.

[sj4iy]

At this point, i think people are just pissy for the sake of it and want to whinge cuz the show doesnt meet some ridiculous standard that cannot be realistically achieved. That, and people want to be offended by something.

Agreed :)

I don't understand why people equate "streamlining" with "dumbing down". They aren't the same thing.

A dumbed down version of these stories would have 1/4th of the characters, only be set in Westeros, have no deaths of main characters and have far less nudity, violence and sex.

THAT'S what 'dumbed down' means. It doesn't mean "OMG, they cut out Coldhands who was only in the books for a few scenes and then disappeared!" or "OMG, they changed Asha's name to Yara!"

[ground_control]

Agreed :)

I don't understand why people equate "streamlining" with "dumbing down". They aren't the same thing.

A dumbed down version of these stories would have 1/4th of the characters, only be set in Westeros, have no deaths of main characters and have far less nudity, violence and sex.

THAT'S what 'dumbed down' means. It doesn't mean "OMG, they cut out Coldhands who was only in the books for a few scenes and then disappeared!" or "OMG, they changed Asha's name to Yara!"

That's not what "dumbed down" means. Dumbed down means that complexity is removed because the intended audience is believed to be less intelligent/sophisticated/discerning than the original material. Based on people's reactions, I believe that the show has dumbed down the book story, and that the showrunners assessment of tv viewers as less intelligent/sophisticated/discerning than book readers is unfortunately accurate.

[Miodrag]

Yeah ok, whatever, chumpy.

You are blaming Talisa for Robb being more fleshed out and us seeing more of him? Ok. Like its a bad thing he got some character development that we actually see instead of hear from Cat.

Margaery is actually quite nuanced on the show, we are just seeing how she interacts and not seeing her through someone else's eyes. All im hearing is your purist opinion.

Actually, I'm blaming D&D. Talisa is just a poorly written character. They wrote her, so - they're to blame.

But, to the essence of your remark. What you seem to be confusing is "seeing more of him" with "being more fleshed out". One doesn't equal the other. Robb is more present in the show. He has more screen time. Theoretically, it could mean he's fleshed out more in the show. But it doesn't necessarily mean that, and in this particular case, it definitely doesn't mean that. First, in order to be more fleshed out, he'd have to be more-less the same character. He's not. Look, imagine two lads: one breaks the crucial promise only after he finds out he directly contributed to the death of his two younger brothers, while the other breaks the crucial promise while thinking his brothers are imprisoned but alive. Are those two lads of the same nature? Definitely not. The first one broke his word after falling into an understandable despair resulted from grief and guilt, while the second one broke his word because he fall in love with an attractive girl. Those are some heavy differences, I'm sure you'd agree. Differences that result from very different personalities. Not saying which one is 'better' or 'worse', just that they are very, very different. Now, whatever I know of the second one, is in no way connected to my knowledge of the first one. Book-Robb and TV-Robb are so different, that TV-Robb's screen time has no significance whatsoever on fleshing out of book-Robb.

Of course, you can say that for every character they changed in the show (meaning: every character, literally), but Robb is a very good example. The moment he falls for Talisa on TV, he just can't be even remotely the same character as in the books. Now, to all that, just add Talisa's moronic lines (two personal favorites: 1. "You're fighting to overthrow a king but you don't have a plan for what comes after?"; any king that doesn't answer with "Bitch, who the hell do you think you are?!", or something to that effect, is an even bigger moron than she is; 2. "You angry at me?"; that's what she asks him after informing him she's pregnant; and no, anti-baby pills are still not invented in Westeros at the time), and you'll see what contagious effect I'm talking about. Allow me to be blunt: had Martin wrote Robb's love story that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because I sure as hell wouldn't read his books any more, let alone obsess about them enough to post on the fan site.

About Margaery, it's pretty much the same thing as with Robb.

About my purism - which I don't deny, mind you - it wasn't disturbed by Locke last year. I'd prefer Vargo, and I had no idea why did they replace him with this Locke fellow, but he was not a poorly written character. His lines were not moronic. He angered my puristic self in no way. This year? Man, I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous he was this season. So you see, D&D's failures have nothing to do with my purism.

Objectively bad shows/film dont win awards multiple times over.

Have you seen Lost? 24?

[mushroomshirt]

Actually, I'm blaming D&D. Talisa is just a poorly written character. They wrote her, so - they're to blame.

But, to the essence of your remark. What you seem to be confusing is "seeing more of him" with "being more fleshed out". One doesn't equal the other. Robb is more present in the show. He has more screen time. Theoretically, it could mean he's fleshed out more in the show. But it doesn't necessarily mean that, and in this particular case, it definitely doesn't mean that. First, in order to be more fleshed out, he'd have to be more-less the same character. He's not. Look, imagine two lads: one breaks the crucial promise only after he finds out he directly contributed to the death of his two younger brothers, while the other breaks the crucial promise while thinking his brothers are imprisoned but alive. Are those two lads of the same nature? Definitely not. The first one broke his word after falling into an understandable despair resulted from grief and guilt, while the second one broke his word because he fall in love with an attractive girl. Those are some heavy differences, I'm sure you'd agree. Differences that result from very different personalities. Not saying which one is 'better' or 'worse', just that they are very, very different. Now, whatever I know of the second one, is in no way connected to my knowledge of the first one. Book-Robb and TV-Robb are so different, that TV-Robb's screen time has no significance whatsoever on fleshing out of book-Robb.

Of course, you can say that for every character they changed in the show (meaning: every character, literally), but Robb is a very good example. The moment he falls for Talisa on TV, he just can't be even remotely the same character as in the books. Now, to all that, just add Talisa's moronic lines (two personal favorites: 1. "You're fighting to overthrow a king but you don't have a plan for what comes after?"; any king that doesn't answer with "Bitch, who the hell do you think you are?!", or something to that effect, is an even bigger moron than she is; 2. "You angry at me?"; that's what she asks him after informing him she's pregnant; and no, anti-baby pills are still not invented in Westeros at the time), and you'll see what contagious effect I'm talking about. Allow me to be blunt: had Martin wrote Robb's love story that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because I sure as hell wouldn't read his books any more, let alone obsess about them enough to post on the fan site.

lol - thanks that made me smile.

[Yojimbo]

Shes saying that critical acclaim doesnt lie. Objectively bad shows/film dont win awards multiple times over. I dont like the movie Titanic at all, but objectively, its not an awful film.

And no, the show doesnt dumb down everything. When transitioning certain plot points into visual media, some things wind up being more...in yer face than they would be in the original media. Some things could stand to be a bit more subtle (like Loras), but the entirety of the story is, in no way, completely dumbed down.

At this point, i think people are just pissy for the sake of it and want to whinge cuz the show doesnt meet some ridiculous standard that cannot be realistically achieved. That, and people want to be offended by something.

Well am sorry but when some one says;

I gave the award information as a counter-argument to the 'the show has been dumbed down' statement- GoT is one of the most critically successful shows on tv right now.

What am I meant to say to that? And ok I will bite, if we are going to use awards as proof this show is not 'dumped down' which award(s) are we going to use for that, I would say Best Written would be the best proof this show is not 'dumped down' but sadly GoT has not won any. So what are we going to use instead Best Actor? Best Sound Editing? Best Visual Effects? Best Producer? Or my favorite Best Main Title Design? Also which award body are we going to use Kerrang! or the Emmys?

See why I think it a silly idea to use awards as proof that this show is not 'dumbed down?

On the whingeing thing, which does seem like a common thing on these forms when some has not got nothing to say. I am not whinging about the show at all, that point for me has long gone past. I honestly don't give one iota about it and if we where to see Drogon sprout a pair of breasts I really wouldn't be suprised, the writers have managed at least not to mess up the dragons yet, but if they did I wouldn't even blink an eyelid. What I would like to know is how any one can compare this shows writing to the books, because the answer for it is beyond me. And am not talking about descriptions of items/cloths/etc but actual charecter devlopment, interactions and story telling.

Allow me to be blunt: had Martin wrote Robb's love story that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because I sure as hell wouldn't read his books any more, let alone obsess about them enough to post on the fan site.

:agree:

[Hodor the Articulate]

Yeah ok, whatever, chumpy.

You are blaming Talisa for Robb being more fleshed out and us seeing more of him? Ok. Like its a bad thing he got some character development that we actually see instead of hear from Cat.

What character development? In the books, Robb is a young boy learning to lead, while still looking for assurance in his mother. He is his father's son, in that he is bound by honour and duty; two traits that motivated him to go to war, and to break his betrothal. All this was lost in the adaptation, when D&D decided to make him a generic young warrior, motivated by manliness. Rather than the tragedy of Robb dying and losing everything (in part) for the same reason that his father did (rigid sense of duty/honour), we get some crap about a 20-something douche who breaks alliances... just 'cause. So deep.

[Le Cygne]

The books the books the books the books the boooooooooooks...

[Yojimbo]

What character development? In the books, Robb is a young boy learning to lead, while still looking for assurance in his mother. He is his father's son, in that he is bound by honour and duty; two traits that motivated him to go to war, and to break his betrothal. All this was lost in the adaptation, when D&D decided to make him a generic young warrior, motivated by manliness. Rather than the tragedy of Robb dying and losing everything (in part) for the same reason that his father did (rigid sense of duty/honour), we get some crap about a 20-something douche who breaks alliances... just 'cause. So deep.

Very well said, totally agree. But remember they did kill Robb at the Red Wedding so nothing has chaged right?.........................

[Khal Porno]

Actually, I'm blaming D&D. Talisa is just a poorly written character. They wrote her, so - they're to blame.

But, to the essence of your remark. What you seem to be confusing is "seeing more of him" with "being more fleshed out". One doesn't equal the other. Robb is more present in the show. He has more screen time. Theoretically, it could mean he's fleshed out more in the show. But it doesn't necessarily mean that, and in this particular case, it definitely doesn't mean that. First, in order to be more fleshed out, he'd have to be more-less the same character. He's not. Look, imagine two lads: one breaks the crucial promise only after he finds out he directly contributed to the death of his two younger brothers, while the other breaks the crucial promise while thinking his brothers are imprisoned but alive. Are those two lads of the same nature? Definitely not. The first one broke his word after falling into an understandable despair resulted from grief and guilt, while the second one broke his word because he fall in love with an attractive girl. Those are some heavy differences, I'm sure you'd agree. Differences that result from very different personalities. Not saying which one is 'better' or 'worse', just that they are very, very different. Now, whatever I know of the second one, is in no way connected to my knowledge of the first one. Book-Robb and TV-Robb are so different, that TV-Robb's screen time has no significance whatsoever on fleshing out of book-Robb.

Of course, you can say that for every character they changed in the show (meaning: every character, literally), but Robb is a very good example. The moment he falls for Talisa on TV, he just can't be even remotely the same character as in the books. Now, to all that, just add Talisa's moronic lines (two personal favorites: 1. "You're fighting to overthrow a king but you don't have a plan for what comes after?"; any king that doesn't answer with "Bitch, who the hell do you think you are?!", or something to that effect, is an even bigger moron than she is; 2. "You angry at me?"; that's what she asks him after informing him she's pregnant; and no, anti-baby pills are still not invented in Westeros at the time), and you'll see what contagious effect I'm talking about. Allow me to be blunt: had Martin wrote Robb's love story that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because I sure as hell wouldn't read his books any more, let alone obsess about them enough to post on the fan site.

About Margaery, it's pretty much the same thing as with Robb.

About my purism - which I don't deny, mind you - it wasn't disturbed by Locke last year. I'd prefer Vargo, and I had no idea why did they replace him with this Locke fellow, but he was not a poorly written character. His lines were not moronic. He angered my puristic self in no way. This year? Man, I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous he was this season. So you see, D&D's failures have nothing to do with my purism.

Have you seen Lost? 24?

Vargo Hoat was fucking awful and I'm glad he wasn't in the show.