Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

teemo

[BOOK SPOILERS] Nitpick Without Repercussion

Recommended Posts

Oh yeah. Like GRRM would ever admit that D&D failed and the episode is shit. He can't say what he thinks you know, it kind of brings him money, he is close to D&D and the popularity of the show grows. He might have actually liked it, but you can't judge just by him saying so in public.

He likes to talk about how apprehensive he was when D&D first approached him because he was afraid they'd muck up an adaption with their own ambitions and now that it's happening right before his very eyes, all he can do is condone it. Whenever he's prodded on how he really feels (because that's the only time he'll actually say anything), he comes off as meek and makes sure to be overly careful with his words. Also, I love how Neil Marshall actually used the term "spice up" in reference to what he did to the Battle of Castle Black. The dude really thought he was improving on what a bestselling novelist wrote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee i dont know, maybe he loses to Brienne because hes got an infected wound on his neck?

Just saiyan.

^Agreed. She couldn't beat him if he were 100%, but he won't be. The neck is a terrible place to have an infection, because of the proximity to the brain. She could beat him then, because she's not a pushover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee i dont know, maybe he loses to Brienne because hes got an infected wound on his neck?

Just saiyan.

He has been hurt worse and still has won fights. He fucked up undead Dondarrion with his arm on fire. And as for Brienne, in the books Jamie was giving her a run for her money despite being starved and having his hands shackled together. That's the books though, so I suppose it's a different Brienne. Sure, she could win because he has an infected wound, but I still think they like to make her OP because girl power.

Just super saiyan ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that wound is strongly implied to be fucking Sandor's shit up considerably. Making him rather ill and thus, he gets much slower in his movements and reactions. Brienne hits like a truck most of the time, but shes slow. If Sandor is sick, hes going to be slower than her and leave himself wide open. Hence the reason why there was a bit of time spent on his wound. It will be the explanation to why he gets tore up by Brienne.




Just super saiyan



At least you replied with this. B:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that wound is strongly implied to be fucking Sandor's shit up considerably. Making him rather ill and thus, he gets much slower in his movements and reactions. Brienne hits like a truck most of the time, but shes slow. If Sandor is sick, hes going to be slower than her and leave himself wide open. Hence the reason why there was a bit of time spent on his wound. It will be the explanation to why he gets tore up by Brienne.

At least you replied with this. B:

Lol I couldn't resist :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that the fight between Brienne and the Hound never happens. I dislike those "Who would win in a fight?" threads and I cringe already thinking how some people would use Brienne beating Hound (or vice versa) in the show as an argument even when dicussing the books (like some have done about Ned's skills because of the Ned-vs-Jaime fight from the show). Show-Brienne is a lot more badass than the book-Brienne though. IIRC book-Brienne kills her first man in AFFC and it was a big deal for her. They have made the show version more one dimensional character.



EDIT: It would be weird if the Hound gets bitten twice and does he bite back?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt help that this fandom is almost completely at odds with itself. Hardly anyone posting here can get along with each other. Its pretty toxic.

You're right that this fandom is really different from other fandoms, and I think there's a damn good reason for it: ASOIAF is way different from other stories that have fandoms. Fanaticism/obsession over it isn't inspired by cool stuff a la light sabers or time travels or secret castles. No, it's inspired by human characters and their tragic fates and themes those fates and those characters emphasize/deliver. All that brings a whole new level and nature of investment in the story. Of course there are no discussion between Gimli fans and Legolas fans about who's more or less moral between the two of them. What debate about Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek can possibly resemble debates about the Red Wedding or Dany's war on slavery or Tyrion killing Shae and Tywin? I dare to say - none. Nothing against fans of those stories, but this is just a different kind of story. ASOIAF has much more in common with stories that are usually considered high literature. Faulkner is someone who Martin continually cites as an influence, and you can clearly see why. Gatsby is who Martin modeled Littlefinger on, and Littlefinger is who kinda sets everything in motion. Arya made a Faustian deal (and the best part is: she doesn't even know it). Lannisters are, in a way, as Corleones would've been if Vito was not a family-centered man but ego-maniac obsessed with personal power. And so on. You don't find characters like those and developments like those in typical genre stories, regardless of the genre. ASOIAF is not designed for geeks and nerds. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure there even is a geek/nerd culture outside USA and other English-speaking countries. Don't get me wrong, we have our own crazy obsessions, mainly about sports (The World Cup will be my religion for the coming month, even though my nation's team didn't even qualify for the tournament), but, as far as I know, there no fan conventions and similar events (certainly not on the US level). And yet, ASOIAF has a fanatical following throughout the world.

And it was like that even before the show. It wasn't nearly as big as it is today, but the popularity that came with the show is a two-edged sword. I usually speak about D&D, because they are the showrunners after all, but in essence this is way beyond them. The pop-culture just doesn't know what to do with ASOIAF. It had to do something, because pop-culture couldn't just ignore a story that is as popular as ASOIAF. Too much money in that potentially. But it just doesn't know what to deal with it. And you'll see what I'm talking about if you remember the original script for GoT's pilot episode that was leaked last year. That script was much more faithful to the source material than the actual pilot. The first version of the pilot was much more faithful. But something went wrong. Someone was dissatisfied with it. I can't possibly know if it was the focus group or some HBO executive, but the decision was made to change much of the pilot. The director was replaced, and the script was altered, and it was almost completely re-shot. Then and there one can find the root of this debate and every other debate of this kind. Before that, it looked like D&D were what you might call book-purists. After that, they started deviating from the source material whenever they wanted. Now, we'll probably never know what did the first pilot look like, but I'm positive that, if something was wrong with it, it wasn't because of the script. And honestly, I'm not even sure there was anything wrong with it. That wouldn't be the first time ever TV executives made a wrong decision. If HBO was afraid it'd loose money with a more faithful adaptation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And the popularity of the book series kinda testifies to that.

The irony is that ASOIAF is a product of the pop-culture, partially at least. In that aspect, it's a lot like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction: it belongs to the pop-culture and it elevates the pop-culture to a whole new level. Some works, very rare works, are a cross between pop-culture and classics. And, five books in, ASOIAF does look like that kind of story. I'd dare to say it's the best story of that kind. And it's a shame HBO didn't recognize that. The Wire and The Sopranos are usually credited as the best TV shows of all time. For a good reason, because both are truly masterpieces. But, all due respect for them, they have nothing on ASOIAF. Thematically, characterization-wise, plot-wise, ASOIAF is just more complex and rewarding. Thanks to Martin's skill in creating various cultures (which societies are always rooted in), ASOIAF even resonates with our world not a bit less than contemporary dramas like The Wire and The Sopranos do. The Wire is brilliant in depicting institutions in our society, but ASOIAF goes even further and shows how institutions work in any society and why is it so.

Debates about that kind of story are inevitably going to be passionate. And debates about an adaptation that failed to capture much of that richness - and replaced it with cliches and/or simplifications - are definitely going to be passionate. Of course, it doesn't mean the venom is welcomed. But what creates venom is a basic disrespect for different opinions. Not impressions, but opinions. And that disrespect is present in various forms. When someone tells me: "Changes are necessary because of a different medium", it's offensive, because it implies I don't understand TV is a separate medium than the books (which I really do, thank you very much), but also because it prevents any reasonable discussion, because "medium dictates changes" is a highly theoretical assumption that doesn't have to do anything with a very practical examples pointed at on these boards. Yeah, in theory, some changes may be justified because of the difference between a visual medium and a textual one. But until you bring up a particular change like that, you're only ruining a discussion if you keep repeating that "medium dictates changes". And that may be offensive, because I was perhaps looking forward to the discussion you just ruined. And, basically, by repeating a standard, theoretical excuse, that doesn't have any significance for a particular discussion, perhaps in effect you're showing it is you who don't understand the natures of different mediums.

Not to mention that the significant portion of complaints here deals exactly with he medium of television and with GoT as a separate entity. One man striking another against an anvil doesn't have to be ridiculous, especially if it's depicted by a short textual line and left for our imagination to picture the scene it in our heads. But the way it was actually filmed, it's all kinds of ridiculous. (New nitpick in that regard: why didn't Styr just continue striking Jon's head against the anvil?) The essence is lost here: television, like any other medium, is not a breathing entity that follows its own logic. TV is what they put on screen and what we watch. As with any other medium, it's about humans. Humans film it, and humans watch it. There are conventional wisdoms and guidelines created out of practice, but theorizing about "necessary changes" is disregarding the human aspect. And it's strange, to say the least, to find that notion delivered by readers of ASOIAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About people defending the show:

There are many topics and discussions out there about how good the series are. There is only ONE topic exclusively created to discuss the problems and criticize each episode. I can see no other way around: the ones who come here complaining about the nitpickers just can't handle the fact that this kind of topic exist (and I think those topics "positive nitpickins" are proof of that.) The intention of coming here and say "well, I don't understand why you guys think that about the show" is clearly to show disapproval. To recognize a apologist is easy: his discussions involve mostly other's views and opinions (trying to understand them or oppose them), and rarely the object of the critique itself.

It's like a christian going to a mosque just to make sure that every muslim knows that he disagrees with their faith.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a problem with very few things but here they are. Sometimes I felt the music didn't give enough of a dramatic feel to the fighting. I also did not really appreciate the way there was no real display of control points and lines of infantry fighting, rather it was just a load of one on one fights spread over the courtyard. My main problem was that, even later in the battle, there were hardly any bodies on the ground, contrary the amount of people that seemed to be dying. It is just a small detail but it is really important in my opinion.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that this fandom is really different from other fandoms, and I think there's a damn good reason for it: ASOIAF is way different from other stories that have fandoms. Fanaticism/obsession over it isn't inspired by cool stuff a la light sabers or time travels or secret castles. No, it's inspired by human characters and their tragic fates and themes those fates and those characters emphasize/deliver. All that brings a whole new level and nature of investment in the story. Of course there are no discussion between Gimli fans and Legolas fans about who's more or less moral between the two of them. What debate about Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek can possibly resemble debates about the Red Wedding or Dany's war on slavery or Tyrion killing Shae and Tywin? I dare to say - none. Nothing against fans of those stories, but this is just a different kind of story. ASOIAF has much more in common with stories that are usually considered high literature. Faulkner is someone who Martin continually cites as an influence, and you can clearly see why. Gatsby is who Martin modeled Littlefinger on, and Littlefinger is who kinda sets everything in motion. Arya made a Faustian deal (and the best part is: she doesn't even know it). Lannisters are, in a way, as Corleones would've been if Vito was not a family-centered man but ego-maniac obsessed with personal power. And so on. You don't find characters like those and developments like those in typical genre stories, regardless of the genre. ASOIAF is not designed for geeks and nerds. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure there even is a geek/nerd culture outside USA and other English-speaking countries. Don't get me wrong, we have our own crazy obsessions, mainly about sports (The World Cup will be my religion for the coming month, even though my nation's team didn't even qualify for the tournament), but, as far as I know, there no fan conventions and similar events (certainly not on the US level). And yet, ASOIAF has a fanatical following throughout the world.

And it was like that even before the show. It wasn't nearly as big as it is today, but the popularity that came with the show is a two-edged sword. I usually speak about D&D, because they are the showrunners after all, but in essence this is way beyond them. The pop-culture just doesn't know what to do with ASOIAF. It had to do something, because pop-culture couldn't just ignore a story that is as popular as ASOIAF. Too much money in that potentially. But it just doesn't know what to deal with it. And you'll see what I'm talking about if you remember the original script for GoT's pilot episode that was leaked last year. That script was much more faithful to the source material than the actual pilot. The first version of the pilot was much more faithful. But something went wrong. Someone was dissatisfied with it. I can't possibly know if it was the focus group or some HBO executive, but the decision was made to change much of the pilot. The director was replaced, and the script was altered, and it was almost completely re-shot. Then and there one can find the root of this debate and every other debate of this kind. Before that, it looked like D&D were what you might call book-purists. After that, they started deviating from the source material whenever they wanted. Now, we'll probably never know what did the first pilot look like, but I'm positive that, if something was wrong with it, it wasn't because of the script. And honestly, I'm not even sure there was anything wrong with it. That wouldn't be the first time ever TV executives made a wrong decision. If HBO was afraid it'd loose money with a more faithful adaptation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And the popularity of the book series kinda testifies to that.

The irony is that ASOIAF is a product of the pop-culture, partially at least. In that aspect, it's a lot like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction: it belongs to the pop-culture and it elevates the pop-culture to a whole new level. Some works, very rare works, are a cross between pop-culture and classics. And, five books in, ASOIAF does look like that kind of story. I'd dare to say it's the best story of that kind. And it's a shame HBO didn't recognize that. The Wire and The Sopranos are usually credited as the best TV shows of all time. For a good reason, because both are truly masterpieces. But, all due respect for them, they have nothing on ASOIAF. Thematically, characterization-wise, plot-wise, ASOIAF is just more complex and rewarding. Thanks to Martin's skill in creating various cultures (which societies are always rooted in), ASOIAF even resonates with our world not a bit less than contemporary dramas like The Wire and The Sopranos do. The Wire is brilliant in depicting institutions in our society, but ASOIAF goes even further and shows how institutions work in any society and why is it so.

Debates about that kind of story are inevitably going to be passionate. And debates about an adaptation that failed to capture much of that richness - and replaced it with cliches and/or simplifications - are definitely going to be passionate. Of course, it doesn't mean the venom is welcomed. But what creates venom is a basic disrespect for different opinions. Not impressions, but opinions. And that disrespect is present in various forms. When someone tells me: "Changes are necessary because of a different medium", it's offensive, because it implies I don't understand TV is a separate medium than the books (which I really do, thank you very much), but also because it prevents any reasonable discussion, because "medium dictates changes" is a highly theoretical assumption that doesn't have to do anything with a very practical examples pointed at on these boards. Yeah, in theory, some changes may be justified because of the difference between a visual medium and a textual one. But until you bring up a particular change like that, you're only ruining a discussion if you keep repeating that "medium dictates changes". And that may be offensive, because I was perhaps looking forward to the discussion you just ruined. And, basically, by repeating a standard, theoretical excuse, that doesn't have any significance for a particular discussion, perhaps in effect you're showing it is you who don't understand the natures of different mediums.

Not to mention that the significant portion of complaints here deals exactly with he medium of television and with GoT as a separate entity. One man striking another against an anvil doesn't have to be ridiculous, especially if it's depicted by a short textual line and left for our imagination to picture the scene it in our heads. But the way it was actually filmed, it's all kinds of ridiculous. (New nitpick in that regard: why didn't Styr just continue striking Jon's head against the anvil?) The essence is lost here: television, like any other medium, is not a breathing entity that follows its own logic. TV is what they put on screen and what we watch. As with any other medium, it's about humans. Humans film it, and humans watch it. There are conventional wisdoms and guidelines created out of practice, but theorizing about "necessary changes" is disregarding the human aspect. And it's strange, to say the least, to find that notion delivered by readers of ASOIAF.

^^^But this most of all^^^

Thank you. That was beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the purpose is for trying to stifle too much nitpicking in a nitpick thread. I suppose we could all just go around saying: Great show, great book, same but different and still great. I have to say........that sounds incredibly boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think the show is massively over criticised.

I sit and watch, and yeah, when Sansa saved Littlefingner I was thinking "erm... As if Littlefinger hasn't got a plan" and "This Hound is too nice" etc

Loads of "this wasn't how it went down in the books..."

But I still enjoy the show massively.

It doesn't use the books as a screen play, but it's still, even now, pretty damn close to the source material IMO.

I 100% agree with the notion that a lot of the changes have no consequence for the characters involved. Like Arya/Tywin... No change for either character. Scenes night as well have not happened from a narrative point of view.

Tbf Jon learned to spit in people's faces at Crasters Keep (I enjoyed those scenes. Karl Fooking Tanner should be a POV in TWOW).

The show is overly focuses in Tyrion and Dany as well I think. Mainly Tyrion this season as well.

Littlefinger isn't as devious etc.

It's still very entertaining and a lot of the times, they do pull it off really well.

I love how it allows some of my mates who would never read the novels to experience the story... Even if it isn't 100% exact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nitpick: I agree about the token Ghost in this episode. Would (the book) Jon go beyond the wall without Ghost, without even a touch?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show/episode nitpick: sidelining of Ghost

Forum nitpick: the proliferation and incorrect use of the term apologist.

:bowdown:

You're right that this fandom is really different from other fandoms, and I think there's a damn good reason for it:

And it was like that even before the show. It wasn't nearly as big as it is today, but the popularity that came with the show is a two-edged sword.

The irony is that ASOIAF is a product of the pop-culture, partially at least.

The Wire is brilliant in depicting institutions in our society, but ASOIAF goes even further and shows how institutions work in any society and why is it so.

Debates about that kind of story are inevitably going to be passionate. And debates about an adaptation that failed to capture much of that richness - and replaced it with cliches and/or simplifications - are definitely going to be passionate. Of course, it doesn't mean the venom is welcomed. But what creates venom is a basic disrespect for different opinions. Not impressions, but opinions. And that disrespect is present in various forms. When someone tells me: "Changes are necessary because of a different medium", it's offensive, because it implies I don't understand TV is a separate medium than the books (which I really do, thank you very much), but also because it prevents any reasonable discussion, because "medium dictates changes" is a highly theoretical assumption that doesn't have to do anything with a very practical examples pointed at on these boards. Yeah, in theory, some changes may be justified because of the difference between a visual medium and a textual one. But until you bring up a particular change like that, you're only ruining a discussion if you keep repeating that "medium dictates changes". And that may be offensive, because I was perhaps looking forward to the discussion you just ruined. And, basically, by repeating a standard, theoretical excuse, that doesn't have any significance for a particular discussion, perhaps in effect you're showing it is you who don't understand the natures of different mediums.

Not to mention that the significant portion of complaints here deals exactly with he medium of television and with GoT as a separate entity. One man striking another against an anvil doesn't have to be ridiculous, especially if it's depicted by a short textual line and left for our imagination to picture the scene it in our heads. But the way it was actually filmed, it's all kinds of ridiculous. (New nitpick in that regard: why didn't Styr just continue striking Jon's head against the anvil?) The essence is lost here: television, like any other medium, is not a breathing entity that follows its own logic. TV is what they put on screen and what we watch. As with any other medium, it's about humans. Humans film it, and humans watch it. There are conventional wisdoms and guidelines created out of practice, but theorizing about "necessary changes" is disregarding the human aspect. And it's strange, to say the least, to find that notion delivered by readers of ASOIAF.

Posts such as this one make me a fan of this thread.

I don't need to agree with you to find your insights well thought-out and worthy of a second read. :)

I'm not sure what the purpose is for trying to stifle too much nitpicking in a nitpick thread. I suppose we could all just go around saying: Great show, great book, same but different and still great. I have to say........that sounds incredibly boring.

I do enjoy the negative nitpicking threads the most. Not because I like to wallow in negativity, but because I'm reminded of how different we all are, even though it is our great love/admiration for the story that brought us together in the first place.

Most movies my husband and I go to see usually end up in a debate ... a discussion of likes/dislikes about what we've seen. Our differences are so pronounced that I sometimes wonder if we've seen the same movie! Maybe the movie has a secret 'man-code' that I'm unaware of! :lol:

Then it hit me one day: the discussion/debate after the movie is the best part for both of us! I think the only movie we've ever agree on was 300 ... we went to see it 3 times in the theatre to try to figure out why our enjoyment/entertainment was unanimous, but never did. It was spooky! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it hit me one day: the discussion/debate after the movie is the best part for both of us! I think the only movie we've ever agree on was 300 ... we went to see it 3 times in the theatre to try to figure out why our enjoyment/entertainment was unanimous, but never did. It was spooky! :P

You called in the cavalry just in time :p I think this honest trailer for 300 pretty much lists why people love the movie so much. Pay especially close attention to the section from 01.48 to 02.37 min. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called in the cavalry just in time :P I think this honest trailer for 300 pretty much lists why people love the movie so much. Pay especially close attention to the section from 01.48 to 02.37 min. :P

O

M

G

!!

:lol:

Thanks for the link, Veltigar! I can't believe I missed the 'special 50th' Honest Trailers episode ... wtf! xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that this fandom is really different from other fandoms, and I think there's a damn good reason for it: ASOIAF is way different from other stories that have fandoms. Fanaticism/obsession over it isn't inspired by cool stuff a la light sabers or time travels or secret castles. No, it's inspired by human characters and their tragic fates and themes those fates and those characters emphasize/deliver. All that brings a whole new level and nature of investment in the story. Of course there are no discussion between Gimli fans and Legolas fans about who's more or less moral between the two of them. What debate about Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek can possibly resemble debates about the Red Wedding or Dany's war on slavery or Tyrion killing Shae and Tywin? I dare to say - none. Nothing against fans of those stories, but this is just a different kind of story. ASOIAF has much more in common with stories that are usually considered high literature. Faulkner is someone who Martin continually cites as an influence, and you can clearly see why. Gatsby is who Martin modeled Littlefinger on, and Littlefinger is who kinda sets everything in motion. Arya made a Faustian deal (and the best part is: she doesn't even know it). Lannisters are, in a way, as Corleones would've been if Vito was not a family-centered man but ego-maniac obsessed with personal power. And so on. You don't find characters like those and developments like those in typical genre stories, regardless of the genre. ASOIAF is not designed for geeks and nerds. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure there even is a geek/nerd culture outside USA and other English-speaking countries. Don't get me wrong, we have our own crazy obsessions, mainly about sports (The World Cup will be my religion for the coming month, even though my nation's team didn't even qualify for the tournament), but, as far as I know, there no fan conventions and similar events (certainly not on the US level). And yet, ASOIAF has a fanatical following throughout the world.

And it was like that even before the show. It wasn't nearly as big as it is today, but the popularity that came with the show is a two-edged sword. I usually speak about D&D, because they are the showrunners after all, but in essence this is way beyond them. The pop-culture just doesn't know what to do with ASOIAF. It had to do something, because pop-culture couldn't just ignore a story that is as popular as ASOIAF. Too much money in that potentially. But it just doesn't know what to deal with it. And you'll see what I'm talking about if you remember the original script for GoT's pilot episode that was leaked last year. That script was much more faithful to the source material than the actual pilot. The first version of the pilot was much more faithful. But something went wrong. Someone was dissatisfied with it. I can't possibly know if it was the focus group or some HBO executive, but the decision was made to change much of the pilot. The director was replaced, and the script was altered, and it was almost completely re-shot. Then and there one can find the root of this debate and every other debate of this kind. Before that, it looked like D&D were what you might call book-purists. After that, they started deviating from the source material whenever they wanted. Now, we'll probably never know what did the first pilot look like, but I'm positive that, if something was wrong with it, it wasn't because of the script. And honestly, I'm not even sure there was anything wrong with it. That wouldn't be the first time ever TV executives made a wrong decision. If HBO was afraid it'd loose money with a more faithful adaptation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And the popularity of the book series kinda testifies to that.

The irony is that ASOIAF is a product of the pop-culture, partially at least. In that aspect, it's a lot like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction: it belongs to the pop-culture and it elevates the pop-culture to a whole new level. Some works, very rare works, are a cross between pop-culture and classics. And, five books in, ASOIAF does look like that kind of story. I'd dare to say it's the best story of that kind. And it's a shame HBO didn't recognize that. The Wire and The Sopranos are usually credited as the best TV shows of all time. For a good reason, because both are truly masterpieces. But, all due respect for them, they have nothing on ASOIAF. Thematically, characterization-wise, plot-wise, ASOIAF is just more complex and rewarding. Thanks to Martin's skill in creating various cultures (which societies are always rooted in), ASOIAF even resonates with our world not a bit less than contemporary dramas like The Wire and The Sopranos do. The Wire is brilliant in depicting institutions in our society, but ASOIAF goes even further and shows how institutions work in any society and why is it so.

Debates about that kind of story are inevitably going to be passionate. And debates about an adaptation that failed to capture much of that richness - and replaced it with cliches and/or simplifications - are definitely going to be passionate. Of course, it doesn't mean the venom is welcomed. But what creates venom is a basic disrespect for different opinions. Not impressions, but opinions. And that disrespect is present in various forms. When someone tells me: "Changes are necessary because of a different medium", it's offensive, because it implies I don't understand TV is a separate medium than the books (which I really do, thank you very much), but also because it prevents any reasonable discussion, because "medium dictates changes" is a highly theoretical assumption that doesn't have to do anything with a very practical examples pointed at on these boards. Yeah, in theory, some changes may be justified because of the difference between a visual medium and a textual one. But until you bring up a particular change like that, you're only ruining a discussion if you keep repeating that "medium dictates changes". And that may be offensive, because I was perhaps looking forward to the discussion you just ruined. And, basically, by repeating a standard, theoretical excuse, that doesn't have any significance for a particular discussion, perhaps in effect you're showing it is you who don't understand the natures of different mediums.

Not to mention that the significant portion of complaints here deals exactly with he medium of television and with GoT as a separate entity. One man striking another against an anvil doesn't have to be ridiculous, especially if it's depicted by a short textual line and left for our imagination to picture the scene it in our heads. But the way it was actually filmed, it's all kinds of ridiculous. (New nitpick in that regard: why didn't Styr just continue striking Jon's head against the anvil?) The essence is lost here: television, like any other medium, is not a breathing entity that follows its own logic. TV is what they put on screen and what we watch. As with any other medium, it's about humans. Humans film it, and humans watch it. There are conventional wisdoms and guidelines created out of practice, but theorizing about "necessary changes" is disregarding the human aspect. And it's strange, to say the least, to find that notion delivered by readers of ASOIAF.

Very well written.

You called in the cavalry just in time :P I think this honest trailer for 300 pretty much lists why people love the movie so much. Pay especially close attention to the section from 01.48 to 02.37 min. :P

The homoerotic undertones at least have something do to with history. Probably about the only thing in the entire movie that does.

Unless you ask the director, of course.

"the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." Zack Snyder

:drunk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called in the cavalry just in time :P I think this honest trailer for 300 pretty much lists why people love the movie so much. Pay especially close attention to the section from 01.48 to 02.37 min. :P

BHAHAHAHAHA Honesty and nipple ratios?? This does lead me to a question that has been on my mind, though (not questioning if a documentary is better than 300, an actual show and nitpick question, LOL) is the super duper nitpicking of battle scenes.........a guy thing?? Just curious, not trying to offend anyone.

Our above poster Wolfox6 mentioning her and the hubby's varying tastes, as well as 300, has helped lead me to this question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bowdown:

Posts such as this one make me a fan of this thread.

I don't need to agree with you to find your insights well thought-out and worthy of a second read. :)

I do enjoy the negative nitpicking threads the most. Not because I like to wallow in negativity, but because I'm reminded of how different we all are, even though it is our great love/admiration for the story that brought us together in the first place.

Most movies my husband and I go to see usually end up in a debate ... a discussion of likes/dislikes about what we've seen. Our differences are so pronounced that I sometimes wonder if we've seen the same movie! Maybe the movie has a secret 'man-code' that I'm unaware of! :lol:

Then it hit me one day: the discussion/debate after the movie is the best part for both of us! I think the only movie we've ever agree on was 300 ... we went to see it 3 times in the theatre to try to figure out why our enjoyment/entertainment was unanimous, but never did. It was spooky! r t :P

I don't enjoy wallowing in negativity either, hell......sometimes, it can be done for fun, for love of something, or just for the realization that nothing is perfect. Loved the story of you and hubs and 300. Can't say it's made me prefer it over a documentary, though, LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×