What is it about S4 that makes it so much more watchable than S1-3?

[Ingelheim]

There is a poster on here, David Selig, who constantly talks about Jon's stupidity inflicting shield. As a Jon fan I frequently disagree, but I have to give it to him. Show Jon with that Craster's Keep plan of his clearly has such a field. Heck, he's probably even more dangerous than dragons. Everyone goes full retard around him.

Actually, the plan was quite good. They fucked it up when they started screaming haha.

[Veltigar]

Since Locke was a replacement for Vago Hoat an anti-climatic ending was within the spirit of the character.

But it did hurt the overall narrative. During season three, I loved Locke. He was much better than boring Vargo. His anti-nobility shtick made him memorable and it really did make sense. Finally, a non-noble character who got it and wasn't a patsy like Hot Pie or an Uncle Tom like Davos (I love him, but he has some serious Uncle Tom vibes). In season three Locke was giving some serious anti-villain vibes. I could see him evolve in the deeply grey character the book series is famed for. And then in season 4 they just made him into Ramsay's stupid evil buddy. A terrible waste of that character. They could have done some great things with him.

Actually, the plan was quite good. They fucked it up when they started screaming haha.

No, it wasn't. What on earth made him go like 'Bran is probably there'. Heck, why he thought the mutineers would be stupid enough to stay there for such a long period of time already baffles me.

[Ingelheim]

No, it wasn't. What on earth made him go like 'Bran is probably there'. Heck, why he thought the mutineers would be stupid enough to stay there for such a long period of time already baffles me.

...Edd told them the mutineers were there. They had Edd and Grenn, remember?

About Bran, well, this is partially Sam's fault. But he was there.

[Cas Stark]

But it did hurt the overall narrative. During season three, I loved Locke. He was much better than boring Vargo. His anti-nobility shtick made him memorable and it really did make sense. Finally, a non-noble character who got it and wasn't a patsy like Hot Pie or an Uncle Tom like Davos (I love him, but he has some serious Uncle Tom vibes). In season three Locke was giving some serious anti-villain vibes. I could see him evolve in the deeply grey character the book series is famed for. And then in season 4 they just made him into Ramsay's stupid evil buddy. A terrible waste of that character. They could have done some great things with him.

No, it wasn't. What on earth made him go like 'Bran is probably there'. Heck, why he thought the mutineers would be stupid enough to stay there for such a long period of time already baffles me.

Agree. He would have been much better used as a long term infiltrator of the NW....where he would grow to respect Jon Snow and so the audience would never be sure if he was going to stab him in the back or end up supporting him....They could have kept him for the coming season.

Instead, they had him execute the STUPIDEST plan in the history of GOT, how in the fuck does he think he's getting South of the Wall again with Bran? Or, why doesn't he just kill all the hostages and have done with it, then he's taken out 1 Stark and left no witnesses. What they have him do was mind boggling stupid.

[Guard of the Rainking]

I doubt that D&D can ever create another character in GoT that's as good as Locke.

[Veltigar]

...Edd told them the mutineers were there. They had Edd and Grenn, remember?

About Bran, well, this is partially Sam's fault. But he was there.

Yeah, but Edd & Grenn took their sweet time to return to the Wall. And Jon first had to convince Thorne and then travel towards the keep himself. That must have taken quite some time. The mutineers were idiots for staying there that long. Hence, they to fell victim to Jon's stupidity inducing field.

Agree. He would have been much better used as a long term infiltrator of the NW....where he would grow to respect Jon Snow and so the audience would never be sure if he was going to stab him in the back or end up supporting him....They could have kept him for the coming season.

Instead, they had him execute the STUPIDEST plan in the history of GOT, how in the fuck does he think he's getting South of the Wall again with Bran? Or, why doesn't he just kill all the hostages and have done with it, then he's taken out 1 Stark and left no witnesses. What they have him do was mind boggling stupid.

I agree with you. I thought they had a great hook for the character even. Like, it was really out-of-character for Tywin not to demand Locke's head, after what he did to Jaime. Roose could have told Locke that Tywin wanted his head and force him to join the NW and kill Jon or something like that, in order to placate Tywin. That should have been in episode one.

After he'd been send to the Wall, he would indeed see how Jon was actually a good and honourable man. They could easily use Locke's anti-noble sentiment for this. Like, all highborns are cunts, but then Jon comes along and he gets it. He's a man worthy of being followed. They could have built that up and eventually used him to replace Donal Nooye. Or if they had handled it differently, he might have morphed into the role of Bowen Marsh eventually. He really had so many possibilities.

I doubt that D&D can ever create another character in GoT that's as good as Locke.

I agree, the chance that they'll create another character with that sort of potential is close to nil.

[sj4iy]

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would love Craster's keep. Brienne vs. the Hound was dumb as well, but at least the fight was somewhat trilling. craster's keep was just a clusterfuck.

People like good alterations. Like the show's more human Cersei. Or Tywin using Tyrion's trial to get Jaime to leave the KG. Crap alterations are called out. Of course, people disagree on what's a good alteration and what not, but it's unfair to say that the many show detractors on this forum dislike all the alterations.

I didn't say that. I simply said that any alteration to the source material isn't well received here...and that's not hyperbole or exaggeration. That doesn't mean that most book readers dislike them...it means that the people who post here typically don't. Most book readers and show watchers don't even bother with forums. We're a tiny minority, and insulated. There aren't many show watchers who haven't read the books around here because it's impossible to talk about the show without book spoilers.

[Cas Stark]

Well the show as an unfortunate tendency to find these gems....I'm too lazy to look up the actor's names so Locke, Karl Tanner, Jaqen, especially, him, Balon Greyjoy...and give them super small amounts of screen time, while nitwits like Shae, Talisa were everywhere you looked.

[Le Cygne]

Don't forget about Ros...

[TheKitttenGuard]

But it did hurt the overall narrative. During season three, I loved Locke. He was much better than boring Vargo. His anti-nobility shtick made him memorable and it really did make sense. Finally, a non-noble character who got it and wasn't a patsy like Hot Pie or an Uncle Tom like Davos (I love him, but he has some serious Uncle Tom vibes). In season three Locke was giving some serious anti-villain vibes. I could see him evolve in the deeply grey character the book series is famed for. And then in season 4 they just made him into Ramsay's stupid evil buddy. A terrible waste of that character. They could have done some great things with him.

I did not see Locke anti-villian vibe. Jaime was still a "villian" and Locke was a more villianous character. His anti-nobilty was interesting but it there really not more there. If Brienne father offer what Jaime made him out to be than he would of taken the ramson. Jaime being a smug douche is what got his hand chopped off.

Noah Taylor did a outstanding acting job and that I will miss.

Fun to see D&D get run down on a character they did created in whole. It is really a backhand praise in many ways.

[Veltigar]

I didn't say that. I simply said that any alteration to the source material isn't well received here...and that's not hyperbole or exaggeration. That doesn't mean that most book readers dislike them...it means that the people who post here typically don't. Most book readers and show watchers don't even bother with forums. We're a tiny minority, and insulated. There aren't many show watchers who haven't read the books around here because it's impossible to talk about the show without book spoilers.

... I did not talk about bookreaders as a whole. I'm specifically talking about the 'show detractors on this forum'. It's right there in my reply. And most alterations are poorly received because they were poorly executed by the writing team. When they do strike gold, most of us are honest enough to praise them for it.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Don't forget about Ros...

Why? we're trying hard to do so...

[sj4iy]

... I did not talk about bookreaders as a whole. I'm specifically talking about the 'show detractors on this forum'. It's right there in my reply.

You said that I said something I did not. I was clarifying it.

And most alterations are poorly received because they were poorly executed by the writing team.

Your opinion. That doesn't make it true. I find that many of the changes are just fine. A few haven't been, of course, but that doesn't mean the majority are. And some are better than the book. It's really, really rare to find a change that everyone agrees on as being better.

Still, a change as innocuous as "Only Cat" to "Your sister" gets treated like an insult to the book readers on this forum, worthy of an entire thread in which to complain about it. It's silly sometimes.

When they do strike gold, most of us are honest enough to praise them for it.

Some people are. But not most. Any show watcher who wanders into this forum looking to discuss the show has to immediately go on the defensive.

I love discussing the books here, but the moment I attempt to discuss anything concerning the show, I am immediately barraged. I have been called an assortment of names from "show apologist" to a "shallow reader" to "D&D suck-up" for simply expressing my opinion favorably towards the show. I understand that people have loved these books for a long time, and I understand that the show isn't going to please everyone, but I think some people around here could be more open-minded in discussing the show...especially now that the show is going to outstrip the books and the situation is going to be very different than it is now.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[CaptainTheo]

I agree that Locke was awesome and was very disappointed in his death. Not only was it abrupt and anti-climatic but the writers also turned Bran into a killer.

[sj4iy]

I agree that Locke was awesome and was very disappointed in his death. Not only was it abrupt and anti-climatic but the writers also turned Bran into a killer.

I agree that Locke's death was strangely done, but I do like the drama they added by having Bran use Hodor to kill. They definitely needed to show the dark side of warging. So they got have of it right, imo.

[Aemond's Eye]

But it did hurt the overall narrative. During season three, I loved Locke. He was much better than boring Vargo. His anti-nobility shtick made him memorable and it really did make sense. Finally, a non-noble character who got it and wasn't a patsy like Hot Pie or an Uncle Tom like Davos (I love him, but he has some serious Uncle Tom vibes). In season three Locke was giving some serious anti-villain vibes. I could see him evolve in the deeply grey character the book series is famed for. And then in season 4 they just made him into Ramsay's stupid evil buddy. A terrible waste of that character. They could have done some great things with him.

I agree with you in that it was anti-climatic, but I don't agree that the character should have been developed much further. Ultimately, if you're then devoting time to developing one of your own original characters, how can you 'not have the time or budget' for others?

[Veltigar]

I agree with you in that it was anti-climatic, but I don't agree that the character should have been developed much further. Ultimately, if you're then devoting time to developing one of your own original characters, how can you 'not have the time or budget' for others?

Ever heard of Daryl Dixon? WD is a shitty show, but their most popular character isn't in the original source material. They spend time on developing him. Locke wouldn't take nearly as much time. Plus, the rest of the season would not have evolved in quite the same way. It's not as simple as Locke is now suddenly a good guy, doesn't die at Craster's keep, further development, death. To properly use this character some changes would have to be made. For instance, the crappy Craster's keep storyline could have been scratched or trimmed down. You could easily scrap something like the Orson Lannister scene and there were others as well that just didn't add anything to the narrative.

[Aemond's Eye]

Ever heard of Daryl Dixon? WD is a shitty show, but their most popular character isn't in the original source material. They spend time on developing him. Locke wouldn't take nearly as much time. Plus, the rest of the season would not have evolved in quite the same way. It's not as simple as Locke is now suddenly a good guy, doesn't die at Craster's keep, further development, death. To properly use this character some changes would have to be made. For instance, the crappy Craster's keep storyline could have been scratched or trimmed down. You could easily scrap something like the Orson Lannister scene and there were others as well that just didn't add anything to the narrative.

I actually had not. Not really a fan of zombie movies etc in general so have never bothered with the live action.

My point was that no, I'd rather they hadn't devoted more time to Locke and had instead focused on characters and stories from the source material. But I'm in the grumpy category there as most of the material that I want to see adapted from Feast & Dance isn't going to be, by the looks of it.

The Orson Lannister bit was pretty awful. To be honest, I've found a lot of D&D's original storylines and anecdotes awful. They've done a decent job in expanding upon characters like Osha and Bronn to some degrees, but I've not enjoyed much of when they go off writing their own material. Locke in season four is one such example. It wouldn't really even have been that difficult to have him appear at The Wall and have a bit of intrigue as to why he was there, or what his intentions were - what we got instead was a subplot that I thought was pretty subpar. The only thing that made the CK parts somewhat watchable was Burn Gorman hamming it up, and even then I could have done without it all.

[giant snake]

I agree so much with Locke being a wasted character. Him and the 'knife guy' who has this long fight with these two little tiny knives...it was all so terrible.

I thought that this was the worst season by far. There is some really abominable editing in a few of the episodes. I'm looking at Ramsay chasing out the Northmen with dogs from a cage. Nothing in that entire scene made any sense. The way it sort of shat all over Yara's last season cliffhanger was also pretty lame.

[Roose is Azor Ahai]

I agree so much with Locke being a wasted character. Him and the 'knife guy' who has this long fight with these two little tiny knives...it was all so terrible.

I thought that this was the worst season by far. There is some really abominable editing in a few of the episodes. I'm looking at Ramsay chasing out the Northmen with dogs from a cage. Nothing in that entire scene made any sense. The way it sort of shat all over Yara's last season cliffhanger was also pretty lame.

I think the only reasons for that scene were to give Yara some screen time and show that Theon is now a Reek.