explanations and theories on why they changed certain things...

[the_scream]

I don't get why they completely stuffed up the Mountain. Recast twice and barely present even though he was an incredible villain. When he was on screen in season 2, I didn't even realise. I just don't get how they can get it so wrong.

The other strange change was Vargo Hoat. He was a terrifying villain who got changed to more or less the same character except in name. Why not keep the name at least?

[Brandon the Wise]

I don't get why they completely stuffed up the Mountain. Recast twice and barely present even though he was an incredible villain. When he was on screen in season 2, I didn't even realise. I just don't get how they can get it so wrong.

The Mountain in season 1 was perfectly cast but he couldn't do season 2 because of his commitments to the Hobbit movie

[Guard of the Rainking]

I don't get why they completely stuffed up the Mountain. Recast twice and barely present even though he was an incredible villain. When he was on screen in season 2, I didn't even realise. I just don't get how they can get it so wrong.

The other strange change was Vargo Hoat. He was a terrifying villain who got changed to more or less the same character except in name. Why not keep the name at least?

Vargo Hoat isn't a very Northern name.

It's so stupid that the Mountain, the character with the most unique and memorable armor in the series, gets a regular Lannister armor in season 2.

[Janicia]

In the books, black people played prominent roles (more like the 4th and 5th book). Yet in the series, you would think that only White, Tan, and Bronze people existed! The only exceptions thus far have been Salladhor Saan, and I think one lone female extra in the Qarth waterfront.

We haven't yet seen the adaptation of the 4th and 5th books; it is a bit premature to complain about them. Further, GRRM does write some black secondary characters (among his literally hundreds of mostly non-black secondary characters), but all of his main characters have been white/bronze. Xaro and Hotah were not black in the books, but were in the show. I forget how dark Missandei and Greyworm were described to be in the books.

One can quibble about some of the racial casting decisions of the secondary characters, but the casting racial decisions have been generally true to the written material. Mostly I see fan complaints that the Targaryans, Lannisters, and even Starks have darker hair in the show than they're supposed to, and bitter bitter complaints about Dario not having blue hair.

[Beric175]

The Mountain in the books has no personality beyond evil rapist either. He's mostly absent in the books and people just talk about him. He's not an actual character with deep and complex feelings.

[Canmoore]

We haven't yet seen the adaptation of the 4th and 5th books; it is a bit premature to complain about them. Further, GRRM does write some black secondary characters (among his literally hundreds of mostly non-black secondary characters), but all of his main characters have been white/bronze. Xaro and Hotah were not black in the books, but were in the show. I forget how dark Missandei and Greyworm were described to be in the books.

One can quibble about some of the racial casting decisions of the secondary characters, but the casting racial decisions have been generally true to the written material. Mostly I see fan complaints that the Targaryans, Lannisters, and even Starks have darker hair in the show than they're supposed to, and bitter bitter complaints about Dario not having blue hair.

I hope that the show depicts the summer islanders who take Sam, Gilly, and the baby to Oldtown. I really loved how they basically forced Sam to bang Gilly!

[MissMatchedEyes]

How is better for TV to change "Your Sister" instead of "Only Cat"?

Agree completely. I hated that line change. I also hated the "back alley Sally" line that they gave to Cat in season one.

But I really liked how Jaime says, "my name is Jaime" out loud in the bath scene with Brienne. I think, in his POV chapter he just thinks it but doesn't say it.

[Annara Snow]

Forgot your sarcasm tags there.

Because he would have looked silly and everyone would have been laughing at him?

Like everyone laughed at Dennis Rodman back in 1990s when was super popular, or Lady Gaga now, or David Bowie and all the glam rock stars in 1970s?

[FalseKnight]

Like everyone laughed at Dennis Rodman back in 1990s when was super popular, or Lady Gaga now, or David Bowie and all the glam rock stars in 1970s?

Everyone laughed at them, yes. Now imagine putting them in a medieval setting. If he was a noble, it might be different. He's a sellsword. Viewers know Bronn, Mero, and the other now-dead captain of the Second Sons. These aren't flamboyantly dressed men.

[Annara Snow]

Everyone laughed at them, yes. Now imagine putting them in a medieval setting. If he was a noble, it might be different. He's a sellsword. Viewers know Bronn, Mero, and the other now-dead captain of the Second Sons. These aren't flamboyantly dressed men.

No, they didn't. They were very popular and a bunch of people found them hot (Bowie and the rest of the glam rockers, at least - they were genuine sex symbols of their time; and quite a few people did in Rodman's case as well).

If you think that "everyone laughed" at Bowie, Bolan, the rest of the glam rockers, or even Rodman, all I can say is that you're very uninformed about the public in general.

[FalseKnight]

No, they didn't. They were very popular and a bunch of people found them hot (Bowie and the rest of the glam rockers, at least - they were genuine sex symbols of their time; and quite a few people did in Rodman's case as well).

If you think that "everyone laughed" at Bowie, Bolan, the rest of the glam rockers, or even Rodman, all I can say is that you're very uninformed about the public in general.

Fine but most people would laugh at them in a medieval setting. I grew up in the '90s, and everyone I knew laughed at Rodman, Glam rock was very limited to the '70s, so I don't think it helps you make a case for book Daario in GoT. Book Daario would be a disaster on TV. That was the main point of my post.

[Valyrian Lance]

Generally things get cut or changed for two reasons: budget (can't have too many large scale battles, CGI instances, or a huge cast of characters) and story understanding (can't reference something that happened three seasons ago in one scene at a brothel and make it hit hard, can't overcomplicate new characters, can't confuse too many viewers for the sake of confusion).

D & D believed that flashbacks and inner monologue would water down the story too much. Because of that they have to pick and choose the stories they pursue. Take Tysha for example. Throughout all of the books Tyrion thinks about her, mentions her in inner-monologues with regard to Shae or his father. In the show, people have to talk about it to learn it. That takes screen time. If he continuously talked about it, it would get stale and boring. The Jamie reveal: we would have had a preamble explanation from Tyrion or Jamie that weren't necessary due to them both knowing the original story. The normal fan wouldn't understand without the preamble. In the book Shae doesn't really love Tyrion, but it's obvious that Tyrion loves or her. We get his thoughts. In the show, they had to make it reciprocal to draw out emotion when she does betray him.

[Elessar]

I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating since I've seen mention of it here. People are always saying "D&D know the ending, and they're cutting the fat to get there...etc" as if everything they are doing is working towards George's ending.

I disagree with this sentiment. If anything, the first 4 seasons should show us that D&D don't really care about George's story, or telling it onscreen. It's clear they know what they would like to do and they're going to do that. Why should it be any different with the ending? I don't doubt that George has discussed some of it with them, but why would the ending be the one thing they stuck with when they've made so many other baffling changes? I am of the mind that they're going to do what they want for the ending, the same as they've done with everything else. I have zero concern of the "real" ending being spoiled by the show.

As soon as they pass the books, though, I do expect a dramatic decline in quality (if such can even be possible). Once they're out of George's words to mangle and are dependent only on themselves to create content I expect it to start to more closely resemble the shit-shows that were Xmen origins: Wolverine, and Troy. Both of which were written or co-written by David Benioff.

[Brandon the Wise]

I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating since I've seen mention of it here. People are always saying "D&D know the ending, and they're cutting the fat to get there...etc" as if everything they are doing is working towards George's ending.

I disagree with this sentiment. If anything, the first 4 seasons should show us that D&D don't really care about George's story, or telling it onscreen. It's clear they know what they would like to do and they're going to do that. Why should it be any different with the ending? I don't doubt that George has discussed some of it with them, but why would the ending be the one thing they stuck with when they've made so many other baffling changes? I am of the mind that they're going to do what they want for the ending, the same as they've done with everything else. I have zero concern of the "real" ending being spoiled by the show.

As soon as they pass the books, though, I do expect a dramatic decline in quality (if such can even be possible). Once they're out of George's words to mangle and are dependent only on themselves to create content I expect it to start to more closely resemble the shit-shows that were Xmen origins: Wolverine, and Troy. Both of which were written or co-written by David Benioff.

As I was reading this post, I immediately thought of Troy lol. It was an entertaining movie and features some of the greatest medieval fight scenes I've ever seen but in terms of being factually realistic, Benioff cocked it up.

I too believe D&D will make it into their own show. Next season sees Jaime and Bronn travelling to Dorne and Littlefinger coming to King's Landing - no idea what they have in mind there but it's no where close to the book story. But I'm not too fussed, we've seen dozens of books adapted into television and they're never perfect. I was a young boy when Harry Potter came to the screens and at first I hated the changes they made but as time went on, I came to appreciate them as a separate telling of the story. A lot of people believe GRRM won't finish the series, I still think he will so I can still love the books and the show as two separate entities

[Beric175]

@Elessar: So? Benioff has also written the screenplay for 25th Hour, which was critically well-received and he also wrote the book City of Thieves and has written for 'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia'. And if anything, they can always ask Martin whether or not something they do makes sense going forward and they most likely are doing that already since the beginning. I think the fact that they have stuck as closely to the books as they have until now shows that they respect the story and the world a lot actually. Just because it's not a 1:1 translation like you would want does not mean it's automatically bad and yes we are talking about the same show and books here.

[Daske]

Having seen many hundreds of adaptations from book to film or television across many genres, GoT is easily in the top 5% for faithfulness to the source material (taking into account time constraints). It's probably in the top 1% when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy adaptations which have had a very loose record over the years, although sometimes that can be a good thing too of course.