Discussing Season 4

[Tolsimir]

Watched something from you two for the first time, and I am in agreement with most of your points. Really nice disscusion that raised many valid points and I completely agree with this especially:

"If you constructed a character a certain way, you would expect consistency in how you portray the character.''

[Miodrag]

"People like you" vs "people like me" LOL

I got it: you are an incredibly remarkable unique person while those like me or Newstar or Mr Fixit or D&D are just unimportant talentless nothings.

Everything you write is pompous and sounds like sour grapes.

Sour grapes? Jesus... You guys really react as if D&D were created out of your ribs. What’s so difficult in accepting that someone is genuinely disliking this stupid show?! Not because I wish to be in D&D’s shoes, not because I don’t get the difference between the mediums, not because I forgot about the budget: I dislike it because it is a very stupid show, littered with nonsensical scenes in every single episode. One doesn't need an agenda to dislike a show that features money-returning and diamond-refusing prostitutes, fireballs-throwing little cave creatures played by painted kids, illiterate generals that send ravens to their direct enemies, dialogues that are either “harsh realities” a la beetles or poor excuses for philosophy a la "nothing is nothing", a constantly naked witch with one-liners that seem to be taken from 80s porn (“Come fight death with me”), dead infants in jars, and so on. It is as cheap as anything I've seen, and I’m not talking about the money.

But, seeing you becoming obsessed with myself like Mr. Fixit seem to be from forever, let me try to return some of the favor: I’m positive you two, along with Newstar, would make a better show than D&D. Most probably, had someone suggested to you “Hey, let’s have these whores give the money back to Pod”, you’d say “No, it’d be ridiculous”. I honestly think so, based on what I can conclude from your posts: all our differences notwithstanding, I’m sure you wouldn't green-light something that nonsensical. And if you stop wasting the energy/time/whatever on attacking us who criticize the show, and instead actually think about the show itself for the moment, you’ll probably see how moronic it became.

[Miodrag]

I liked Breaking Bad too, but I agree with you about the bandwagoning

Honestly, GOT fandom is the last one that should be speaking against bandwagoning. GOT is possibly the most overrated show in the history - which is, in essence, a testament to the power of HBO's promotional/advertising machinery. GOT apologists brought the bandwagoning to a whole new level. Just look at the discussion here, in this thread: show apologists are discussing anything other than the actual complaints. "Vitriol", "sour grapes", other shows, semantics... Just not the actual show. And of course they can't. You can't claim this show is not terrible, if you actually discuss (or think about) what D&D do and say. I mean, here's Weiss ridiculing the very thing he and Benioff tried to pull in the first two seasons (speeding-up): authors' utter incompetence doesn't get more obvious than that. If you want to like the show, you simply have to ignore that. And painted kids that throw some sort of grenades. And Talisa. And Yara. And beetles. And so on. You know the drill.

[Raja]

You can't claim this show is not terrible, if you actually discuss (or think about) what D&D do and say. I mean, here's Weiss ridiculing the very thing he and Benioff tried to pull in the first two seasons (speeding-up): authors' utter incompetence doesn't get more obvious than that.

Eh, to me, the sort of reaction you're getting is because you're being condescending to anyone who seems to like the show. At least that is the way it is coming across to me in your posts. I'm sure we are all capable of not being a fan of things, and most people will generally be okay with having different tastes, but if you're going to come write those sort of posts, then don't be surprised that people find the need to respond to them in a similar vein.

[Miodrag]

Eh, to me, the sort of reaction you're getting is because you're being condescending to anyone who seems to like the show. At least that is the way it is coming across to me in your posts. I'm sure we are all capable of not being a fan of things, and most people will generally be okay with having different tastes, but if you're going to come write those sort of posts, then don't be surprised that people find the need to respond to them in a similar vein.

Stating the obvious is not nearly the same as condescending. And it's not the matter of different tastes, because if this was about tastes, there'd be no discussion at all. How am I or anyone to discuss your taste? How are you or anyone to discuss my taste? It's impossible. You can't discuss tastes. And I never do that. I discuss ideas and logic and conclusions and meanings, but not tastes. If you confused that with criticizing your taste, then, sorry to say, but your self-confidence seems way too fragile.

Taste is about what you happen to like. Something can be stupid or intelligent or pompous or subtle, but you still like it - that is taste. How much you value it is something entirely different. Why is it so hard for some people to separate the two? I really like Star Wars, even the prequels, it hits something in me every time. But it is as stupid as it gets. The entire saga is ridiculous, filled with plot holes and inconsistencies and aspects that define basic logic. I can still like it without pretending it isn't stupid. And that is why I'm not offended when someone says Star Wars is ridiculous, because I'm completely aware they're not discussing my taste. It would speak very poorly of me if I was defending my taste against everyone who criticizes Star Wars.

And let's not pretend I'm the only complainer being attacked. Quite the opposite: everyone who criticizes GOT gets attacked by show-apologists. Even Elio and Linda are constantly attacked, although they're always very, very careful about the wording of their complaints. We who complain aren't the problem here - you who defend the show are. I have no problem with you or anyone loving the show. You, on the other hand, obviously can't stand the fact that someone actually thinks D&D are talentless hacks and their show is utter nonsense. Just look at this post of yours:

Also, say that David and Dan have no talent at all is hyperbole to the extreme. They've fleshed out characters better than Martin did on several occasions, I love the book but some of the stuff posted in this thread is absurd.

So, in order to defend D&D, you're willing to criticize Martin. And OK, in theory it's legitimate: nobody should be beyond reproach, Martin included. But please, for the love of God, state at least one character that was better fleshed out in the show. Just one. I know that show-apologists often claim some characters are "better fleshed out" or "improved" in the show, but when pressed to name those characters, it always turns out it wasn't the case at all - it's just that they forgot (or chose to forget) how developed the character in question was in the books, and that they ignore how inconsistent and illogical the same character is in the show. That was the case with Cersei, Tywin, Roose, Theon, Margaery, Joff, Shae, and every other character that was seen as "improved" by some. (Not to mention that D&D themselves, through their writing "brilliance", never failed to disapprove any such notion as soon as the next season comes.) So, if you'd be so kind, tell us one character that is better or richer or in any way improved in the show.

[Cas Stark]

Other than Marg, what character can reasonably claim to be better fleshed out on the show?

[Frey Pies]

So, in order to defend D&D, you're willing to criticize Martin. And OK, in theory it's legitimate: nobody should be beyond reproach, Martin included. But please, for the love of God, state at least one character that was better fleshed out in the show. Just one. I know that show-apologists often claim some characters are "better fleshed out" or "improved" in the show, but when pressed to name those characters, it always turns out it wasn't the case at all - it's just that they forgot (or chose to forget) how developed the character in question was in the books, and that they ignore how inconsistent and illogical the same character is in the show. That was the case with Cersei, Tywin, Roose, Theon, Margaery, Joff, Shae, and every other character that was seen as "improved" by some. (Not to mention that D&D themselves, through their writing "brilliance", never failed to disapprove any such notion as soon as the next season comes.) So, if you'd be so kind, tell us one character that is better or richer or in any way improved in the show.

Some people simply find those characters more interesting in the show, which is as good a reason as any to consider them improved. I never enjoyed book Joffrey and Tywin as much as the show's version of said characters. If many people enjoy the (in some cases) adapted characters, you can't honestly say that every one of them is wrong.

[David Selig]

Other than Marg, what character can reasonably claim to be better fleshed out on the show?

Melisandre. Gendry, Stannis, Selyse and that map table on Dragonstone can confirm it.

[Cas Stark]

Melisandre. Gendry, Stannis, Selyse and that map table on Dragonstone can confirm it.

Okay, Gendry, maybe.

Mel seems the same to me, I find the idea that Stannis is more fully characterized on the show is laughable. Selyse is almost a different character altogether, what with the dead babies in jars and such.

[David Selig]

Okay, Gendry, maybe.

Mel seems the same to me, I find the idea that Stannis is more fully characterized on the show is laughable. Selyse is almost a different character altogether, what with the dead babies in jars and such.

That was a joke, due to my dirty mind, a pretty bad one admittedly. :blushing:

[Cas Stark]

That was a joke, due to my dirty mind, a pretty bad one admittedly. :blushing:

LOL, i guess my sarcasm meter ain't what it used to be.

[JagLover]

Other than Marg, what character can reasonably claim to be better fleshed out on the show?

Tywin

Bronn

Grey Worm

As for which characters are more interesting on the show, add

Sansa (by a long way)

The Hound

Theon

[Raja]

Let's take your last point first, characters that the show did better? Robert is the one that jumps out to me. Part of that is due to the fact that Martin never gave him a POV character, but the show was successful, much more so in the books in asking us 'is this what a king should look like' is this the person who has power and other questions of that ilk. Secondly, Margery is another one is markedly better developed in the show, you actually care about what happens with the character. Edit: She has an agency in the show that is missing from the books, and I love what they've done with her character. Now your opinions on these might differ, and that's okay, because we see these shows through our subjective eyes.

You can't claim this show is not terrible, if you actually discuss (or think about) what D&D do and say.

The idea that if you actually thought about the show, you would think it's terrible, and anyone who thinks it's not terrible is somehow not using their critical faculties is ridiculous.

There is no degree of nuance, no attempt to look at the things the writers and the show does well and Martin does poorly, it has to be 'talentless hacks and utter nonsense' that to me is not criticism. That is what frustrates me the most as opposed to if someone likes or does not like the show. It is a matter of tastes, I'm hardly saying the show is perfect, I rarely come onto the TV forums, but if you read a couple of my posts, you'll certainly see that.

[Miodrag]

Some people simply find those characters more interesting in the show, which is as good a reason as any to consider them improved. I never enjoyed book Joffrey and Tywin as much as the show's version of said characters. If many people enjoy the (in some cases) adapted characters, you can't honestly say that every one of them is wrong.

Again, that's not what I was talking about. How the hell can I say anyone's wrong for enjoying something? If you enjoy something, you enjoy something: nothing wrong about that. But this discussion is not about enjoyment. For starter, if we're going by the semantics, I also didn't enjoy Joff or Tywin in the books, because they weren't meant to be enjoyed by readers. They were meant to play their parts in the context of the story, and they were both written as psychopaths that commit horrendous acts even toward their own. But as pieces of the story Martin's telling, I appreciated both Tywin and Joff to no end. In that capacity, both Joff and Tywin were infinitely richer and more layered and better written in the books than in the show. If you disagree, it'd be great if you can provide any advantage TV Tywin or TV Joff has over their respective book origins.

[Cas Stark]

Tywin

Bronn

Grey Worm

As for which characters are more interesting on the show, add

Sansa (by a long way)

The Hound

Theon

Tywin was pretty well fleshed out in the books.

Bronn is the same, the fact that he is given a ton of screen time doesn't make him more fleshed out.

Theon and Sansa also seem the same to me, though Show Sansa is more likeable than Book Sansa.

The Hound too, is he really more fleshed out? He he has the same back story, there is no more detail there, he's nicer to Arya in a more obvious way, and got a lot of screen time, but that doesn't make him more fleshed out.

Okay Grey Worm, I'll give you that.

[Miodrag]

Let's take your last point first, characters that the show did better? Robert is the one that jumps out to me. Part of that is due to the fact that Martin never gave him a POV character, but the show was successful, much more so in the books in asking us 'is this what a king should look like' is this the person who has power and other questions of that ilk. Secondly, Margery is another one is markedly better developed in the show, you actually care about what happens with the character. Now your opinions on these might differ, and that's okay, because we see these shows through our subjective eyes.

You can't claim this show is not terrible, if you actually discuss (or think about) what D&D do and say.

The idea that if you actually thought about the show, you would think it's terrible, and anyone who thinks it's not terrible is somehow not using their critical faculties is ridiculous.

There is no degree of nuance, no attempt to look at the things the writers and the show does well and Martin does poorly, it has to be 'talentless hacks and utter nonsense' that to me is not criticism. That is what frustrates me the most as opposed to if someone likes or does not like the show. It is a matter of tastes, I'm hardly saying the show is perfect, I rarely come onto the TV forums, but if you read a couple of my posts, you'll certainly see that.

What, you think POV characters are the only ones that are fleshed out in the books? Have to strongly disagree with that. But, besides that, TV Robert lacks two most important traits of book Robert: his sick fascination with Lyanna, and how intimidating he is. In the show his feelings for Lyanna are only mentioned in passing, while the entire backstory of his rebellion is completely omitted. In the books, not only that his obsession with Lyanna is present almost constantly, but we also got Ned comparing him to Rhaegar (and very unfavorably in that). Or what about dialogue gems (like when he admitted to Ned that he'd leave the throne immediately if not for the fact that Joff would become king) that were left out and replaced by - you guessed it - his whoring around ("You smell like strawberries"). And please don't tell me you managed to miss all the hints about his failures as a king. As for his intimidating nature, it's remarkable for a written medium how strongly Martin managed to convey the fact that Robert was a hell of a warrior. People often talk about TV limitations, but they never seem to think about book disadvantages: it is much easier to just show a scary dude on screen, than to describe him on page. And yet, Martin did manage to do that, by having other characters (Ned most of all) talking about Robert's strength and fighting prowess. Opposite to that, in the show he isn't intimidating at all. TV Robert is just not believable as someone who won the throne by being a force of nature on the battlefield. Along with both of his brothers, Robert in the show is but a pale shadow of his book origin.

As for TV Marg, why would I care for a character that changes personality from season to season? A character written to suit the actress, instead of the other way around (even Natalie Dormer admitted as much in one of her recent interviews, that at the beginning D&D didn't exactly knew where they're heading with her character)? Not to mention that from the very start she was depicted as a despicable person. Just recall her attempt at sex with Renly. It's a ridiculous scene for various reasons, but let's focus on her suggestion to invite Loras in. In effect, she proposed a threesome with her husband and her brother. Once again: a threesome with her husband and her brother. I'm not sure D&D wanted her to be so despicable (it's not as if their intentions are necessarily in accordance with their results), but that is what they wrote her as, at least in that scene. So why would I care for a character like that? And how is that even comparable to somewhat still enigmatic, but very skillful young lady from the books, who, and this is the best part, actually does fit the entire context Tyrells serve in as a family of unscrupulous opportunists (which is why Loras, possibly the most honorable among them, doesn't agree too much with the rest of his family)? Instead of that, in the show we have a shallow character that isn't above suggesting a threesome or bragging about her sex life. How can TV Marg be "markedly better" than anything, really?

About nuance, what degree of nuance would you use to describe painted kids throwing grenades? Tell me what nuance am I missing when I say money-returning whores is an obvious sign of the lacking in talent? What nuance can save the way Amory Lorch died in the show? In the universe of storytelling nonsense, these scenes, and countless other examples, are simply unmatched not only by anything from the books, but also by anything from other shows usually regarded as high drama. What from The Sopranos or The Wire is as ridiculous as those scenes?

[Mr Fixit]

"You smell like strawberries"

Tsk tsk.

It was "blackberry jam".

I am not pleased by your inattentiveness.

[Miodrag]

I am not pleased by your inattentiveness.

Contrary to that, I'm fascinated by yours. For a moment, I thought you stopped paying any attention to my posts. I mean, that was the only logical explanation for your failure to address that speeding-up Weiss talked about. Good to see that's not the case.

[protar]

Tywin

Bronn

Grey Worm

As for which characters are more interesting on the show, add

Sansa (by a long way)

The Hound

Theon

Tywin isn't better fleshed out, he's fleshed out differently - as a man who for some reason has a hidden grandfatherly side. Bronn is no more fleshed out either, he's just given more screen time so he can snark. Grey Worm has been fleshed out more though in my opinion not particularly well. The Hound was practically ignored in the first two seasons until Blackwater and Sansa until halfway through this season. Theon is mostly the same but has just gotten a lot of screen time on account of D+D's character favouritism.

Contrary to that, I'm fascinated by yours. For a moment, I thought you stopped paying any attention to my posts. I mean, that was the only logical explanation for your failure to address that speeding-up Weiss talked about. Good to see that's not the case.

About the speeding up - in all fairness just because they thought the fighting looked fake in one scene because they thought it was sped up, it doesn't mean they thought it looked fake in other instances. It's not noticeable unless you specifically look out for it.

[Miodrag]

About the speeding up - in all fairness just because they thought the fighting looked fake in one scene because they thought it was sped up, it doesn't mean they thought it looked fake in other instances. It's not noticeable unless you specifically look out for it.

Watch the two scenes in question - Ned/Jaime fight in episode 5, and Brienne/guards fight in episode 15. You'll clearly see parts were sped up (it's especially jarring in Ned/Jaime). In those scenes, the footage actually was sped up. And now Weiss is saying that it's wrong to speed up the footage, because it looks fake (it looks like he learned some professional expressions in the meantime, because in that "Inside the episode" video he talks about "the ramp", which, at least in Serbian, is used to describe the imagined border between what is depicted on screen and the reality of the viewers, the border that is never to be crossed). All in all, in episodes 5 and 15 they actually did something that's, according to Weiss from episode 39, never to be done.