The show isn’t diverting from the books that much after all.

[protar]

Not really.

Harry Potter is a beloved story. And it is a completely illogical one.

The author introduce magic in one book to save the day and then never introduced it in later books when it was logical to return. Stuff was made up to suite the story of each book itself with no regard for the overall story.

Look, I'm not saying the Harry Potter story is bad. It isn't. It is just a great example of a narrative that has huge plot holes and makes no logical sense.... and people still love it.

So when people complain about GoT or ASOIAF making no sense, just look to HP to see how much any of that really matters.

I disagree. Like a lot. I mean when I said "That's a bit harsh on Harry Potter" that was actually me brimming with suppressed rage :P

Harry Potter's story and logic is by no means spotless but it is pretty well thought out. Rowling's magic system is fairly well governed. I'd like to see some specific examples of magic that introduced to save the day that should have returned later. The Time Turners are usually people's go to example of that, but that isn't how Time Turner's work. They operate based on stable time loops, meaning you can't just go back in time to stop Voldemort, because then Voldemort wouldn't have been a problem and then there would be no need to go back in time to stop him. A paradox. The plot in PoA only works because Harry and Hermione are not aware of the consequences of them going back in time the first time around. And then of course Rowling straight up destroys the Time Turners in Ootp just to be safe.

Perhaps this isn't the place for that discussion, but I'd like to see some specific examples of what you're talking about.

[Johnsmith]

To add to the point about Prima Nocta.... It's a legend and there is no proof of it ever existing.

As for the Bolton's....

They weren't allowed to flay but they could still have flayed banners? Doesn't make sense. Especially if the practice was outlawed.

If they were still flaying, it is highly unlikely word wouldn't have gotten out in 1,000 years.

So somehow the Bolton's are loyal for 1,000 years and then randomly start back on their old ways overnight? Makes no sense.

Can you please for once, try to make an iota of common sense. Using gods gift of a brain through logic formulate a thoughtful response.

There is always a loophole where the Starks outlawed the Bolton's flaying their enemies, never their bannermen.

The Sigil has been around as long as their House has been around, that won't change because of possibly an outlawed practice.

In book one it is hinted that the Boltons flay, when their Sigil is described, when Rob calls the banners to Winterfell, later on in the books do we have more of an in depth history concerning their practices

Your other point is called, rights of the first night, where any lord can take a maiden bedding them on their wedding night before their betrothed. Rob Roy was it? That is not what happened here in the books

[protar]

I too, generally prefer more complex characters. I feel like TV Tyrion is just as complex as book Tyrion, and he's also funnier. I think GRRM took his monstrous appearance too far in the books. I prefer the idea that he is rumored to be a little demon with mismatched eyes and a tail, but is actually just your run of the mill little person. That is far more realistic to me. And lastly, I hated hearing Tyrion's moping in A Dance with Dragons. "Where do whores go?" For the hundredth time, I don't care! I much prefer him dealing with his guilt by not being able to sleep with a whore and drinking too much.

How is show!Tyrion just as complex as book!tyrion? He has some of the complexities of book!Tyrion yes. The whole unhealthy father/son thing and all that. But that's pretty much it. Scarcely a trace of his moral complexity remains in the show, not his misogyny, his violent and abusive tendencies, none of that. I mean you say you were a literature professor but you can't see how stripped of complexity Tyrion is? Tyrion in the books is in my view one of the most brilliantly written characters in modern literature. Show!Tyrion is a witty saint, who drinks. That's D+D's idea of an anti-hero, if a character drinks and can throw back talk about he's an edgy black sheep.

I'd like to see some analysis of how Tyrion is just as deep in the show as in the books. Something which - as per your own credentials - you should be up to.

[StepStark]

Well, I am an ex-college professor in literature and writing. The lecturer in me came out. I apologize. By the way, the narrative arc is not a set of rules one must follow. It is an understanding that people who study storytelling came to many moons ago to explain why certain storytelling customs hook us and make us want to keep reading. Not all stories follow this arc, but the most successful ones tend to do so.

That is how I also understand literary theory, that they are not rules but guidelines that can be followed but don't have to. If someone makes story that hooks readers but without following those guidelines than that is something remarkable and not something that must be critiqued because it failed to follow guidelines. If every author was following guidelines then literature would soon become boring don't you think? But anyway guidelines or not I would like to hear from you why do you think that for example Tyrion is better character in the show then he is in the books? I don't see why would anybody like this show Tyrion who is character that killed his father almost without reason. He says that he killed Tywin because of Shae but then it was Tyrion who didn't want Shae and that is why she went to Tywin's bed. That is Tyrion in the show. In the books that is much more complicated issue and he killed Tywin because of Tysha and because of monstrous crime that Tywin committed against poor Tysha but in the show Tywin committed no crime against Shae and Tyrion says that he killed Tywin because of Shae. So tell me how can Tyrion in the show be more likable or more complex than Tyrion in the books?

[Hodor's Dragon]

1) Faithful is an interesting word. Faithful to every step of the journey or Faithful to get to the destination? Faithful to every word of every book regardless of what GRRM writes, or Faithful to the speed and style of plot that characterised the first 3 books that made fans of us all?

Are AFFC and ADWD "faithful" to the first 3 books?

I said what I meant by "faithful." I meant "faithful" as the word is typically used to refer to an adaptation to the screen. It is understood that even a relatively faithful adaption will have some changes. GOT was extremely faithful the first 2 or 3 seasons, relatively faithful in season 4, and as I said above, the best you can say now is it is "inspired by" ASOIAF, because it is telling a completely different story.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books#List_of_best-selling_book_series.

Purely on Book sales, ASOIAF has a long long way to go before it even approaches LOTR. And a lot more have seen the LOTR/Hobbit movies than will ever watch GOT...

Apples and Oranges when it comes to quality. I'll say this for Tolkien though, he knew how to keep a focus on the main plot, despite having decades worth of material he could have incorporated

Now as to "deserving a relatively faithful adaptation".. i think 70+ hours is not bad. But as for "faithful" well that is a complex subject- see above.

ASOIAF can probably never be as culturally significant as LOTR, which really introduced fantasy to mainstream audiences. That can't be done twice. But I'm very confident in saying that 90% of literary reviewers would call it a superior work, and most would say it's not close. I'm also confident that it will have a shelf life of centuries: works like this don't come along every year.

3) Fair enough regarding ratings.

But on making sense, let me just ask the question -do you think everything in a book series as big as this and an adaptation as large as this will always make sense? I disagree with you on how every aspect of the books holds up if you REALLY want to be a PITA about it [ I don't] . Just a random list:

I wouldn't say everything in the books make perfect sense - that would be a bridge too far. But it is solidly and logically plotted, all 6,000 pages of it.

And I'll make a basic distinction. For each of the 3 examples you list below, it is not at all difficult to come up with a reason a person might want to make the choice that person made, and I'll briefly describe it below. But for Sansa, after being told to "make Ramsay [hers]" for "revenge," I can think of no logically reason for being snotty at dinner. That's just flat-out stupid, especially for a person who is by now perhaps the world's foremost expert at being held captive by horrible people in magnificent castles. (3 times, yo.) It's not as if she appears despondent and suicidal, either: she's just being bratty again, like Season 1. That's nonsense.

Even worse: Dany locked her dragons up why again? So they wouldn't human flesh. Yet now she is feeding them human flesh. Once you show an animal that something is food, guess what - it's food.

There's nothing in the 6,000 pages of the books as inexplicable as those two acts. Yet they both happen in one episode. Along with Dany deciding suddenly to marry some random guy for no reason at all that we've been told about. One episode. And stuff like this has been happening ever since they left the book plot behind.

These guys

1. Book Littlefinger had no expectation that Catelyn would meet face to face with Lysa, and for a period of time. Is it plausible that such an unstable person would be able to withhold all the details of at least her future plans to marry Littlefinger from Cat, ecstatic as she would be to get one over Cat?

Lysa's not that unstable in the books. She is managing the Vale politically all on her own and she's paranoid about her child, but aren't lots of moms? She would ruin everything if she told Cat about LF - she's not stupid.

2. Book Cat releasing Jamie - are you convinced that this is 100% plausible as opposed to say sending a secret message for an exchange via say Brienne?

This was a really bad idea, but it's just Cat's way: pretty much everything she touches turns into a disaster. It was a lot more likely to work than sending Brienne, because Jaime is Cersei's weakness and Brienne is who exactly?

3. Book Robb Stark marrying Jeyne Westerling- you have absolutely no doubts about this as a plausible scenario as opposed to a plot device?

Of course it was a plot device, but not an unrealistic one. He's a teen-ager, she's hot, she comforts him, it gets physical, he's an honorable Stark, etc. Just because it's a plot device doesn't make it stupid. Sansa acting snotty to Ramsay for no reason, though, that's stupid.

now of course i let all that slide because i enjoy the ride. just like i do Sansa in winterfell. Is one REALLY more inconsistent than the other. REALLY?

See above.

[Witchy]

How is show!Tyrion just as complex as book!tyrion? He has some of the complexities of book!Tyrion yes. The whole unhealthy father/son thing and all that. But that's pretty much it. Scarcely a trace of his moral complexity remains in the show, not his misogyny, his violent and abusive tendencies, none of that. I mean you say you were a literature professor but you can't see how stripped of complexity Tyrion is? Tyrion in the books is in my view one of the most brilliantly written characters in modern literature. Show!Tyrion is a witty saint, who drinks. That's D+D's idea of an anti-hero, if a character drinks and can throw back talk about he's an edgy black sheep.

I'd like to see some analysis of how Tyrion is just as deep in the show as in the books. Something which - as per your own credentials - you should be up to.

Oh boy, I knew I was gonna regret outting myself as a _former_ college professor.

I don't think misogyny makes a character complex. Tyrion is complex because he struggles with what the right thing is to do. He wears a mask of jolliness to hide the deep shame of being despised by his father and sister. He loves his brother even as his brother deserts him regularly to have sex with the sister who hates him. He clearly loves Cersei even though he despises her. He does a lot of non-saintly things on the show. He trolls people like Jon Snow for fun. He sends Myrcella to Dorne. He says it's to protect her, but that's bullshit. He does it to piss off Cersei and to find out who is telling her stuff. He kills both Shae and Tywin. The fact that they both deserved it, sort of, doesn't let him off the hook for murdering two people. He jokes now about wanting to drink himself to death, but I think he meant it. Until he saw that dragon.

[Elaena Targaryen]

I just disagree with him splitting the books geographically.

So why don't you just read them in chronological order? You are not forced to stick to the book order and you can easily find something online with all the work done for you.

When Dance first came out I had no patience and read it immediately but for any rereads I combine them, I have also done character rereads. I would also recommend anyone new to the series to think about reading them as a mega-book.

[Witchy]

That is how I also understand literary theory, that they are not rules but guidelines that can be followed but don't have to. If someone makes story that hooks readers but without following those guidelines than that is something remarkable and not something that must be critiqued because it failed to follow guidelines. If every author was following guidelines then literature would soon become boring don't you think? But anyway guidelines or not I would like to hear from you why do you think that for example Tyrion is better character in the show then he is in the books? I don't see why would anybody like this show Tyrion who is character that killed his father almost without reason. He says that he killed Tywin because of Shae but then it was Tyrion who didn't want Shae and that is why she went to Tywin's bed. That is Tyrion in the show. In the books that is much more complicated issue and he killed Tywin because of Tysha and because of monstrous crime that Tywin committed against poor Tysha but in the show Tywin committed no crime against Shae and Tyrion says that he killed Tywin because of Shae. So tell me how can Tyrion in the show be more likable or more complex than Tyrion in the books?

Have you ever seen The Big Lebowski? You know that scene where Walter accuses Donnie of walking into the middle of things unaware? Yeah, I feel like that's what I did to you. I saw something you wrote that appeared to me that you were misusing terms, so I went English teacher on you. I didn't mean to imply that your opinions are wrong or your arguments dumb. I apologize for coming off like a know-it-all.

I don't think Tyrion is a better character in the show. I prefer his character in the show, and I think he's just as complex, even though he is a little less dark. Tyrion didn't know he was going to encounter Shae. That surprised him, and she grabbed the knife (probalby thinking he was there to kill her) and so what happened was part rage, part accident. Tyrion had every intention of killing Tywin, I think. That's why he went up the back way. Maybe he hoped Tywin would say something to talk him out of it. But what Tywin did was call Shae a whore, making it easier for him.

[StepStark]

Have you ever seen The Big Lebowski? You know that scene where Walter accuses Donnie of walking into the middle of things unaware? Yeah, I feel like that's what I did to you. I saw something you wrote that appeared to me that you were misusing terms, so I went English teacher on you. I didn't mean to imply that your opinions are wrong or your arguments dumb. I apologize for coming off like a know-it-all.

I don't think Tyrion is a better character in the show. I prefer his character in the show, and I think he's just as complex, even though he is a little less dark. Tyrion didn't know he was going to encounter Shae. That surprised him, and she grabbed the knife (probalby thinking he was there to kill her) and so what happened was part rage, part accident. Tyrion had every intention of killing Tywin, I think. That's why he went up the back way. Maybe he hoped Tywin would say something to talk him out of it. But what Tywin did was call Shae a whore, making it easier for him.

OK forget about your earlier approach but let focus on Tyrion. Why would he want to kill Tywin in the show? Of course you can say that it was because of how Tywin treated him in life but then I can ask you why didn't Tyrion try to kill Tywin earlier? Or he didn't have to TRY but at least he could show his desire to kill Tywin. But no, in the show there is no sign that Tyrion wants to kill Tywin for treating him like shit. And also Tyrion himself says that he killed Tywin because of Shae and not because of some mistreatment. But then why is Tywin guilty for Shae? Tyrion sent her away. You can say that Tywin forced him to send her away but at the end it was Tyrion who refused Shae to leave King's Landing together so it was his decision to send her away. So then why would Tyrion want to risk his escape and kill Tywin in that precise moment? Why would he risk how life just to confront Tywin? And just to tell you it is not only my questions but what I read from discussion last year when episode with Tywin's death aired. Many posters expressed how ridiculous everything becomes if you take Tysha angle away because characters must have some motives to make irrational moves. And in the books Tysha was that motive but in the show there is no motive. Tyrion just does something irrational just because. Isn't that sort of writing very bad? Because if you write like that than anything is possible and explainable and that means that there is no logic in story. Don't you agree with that?

[Witchy]

OK forget about your earlier approach but let focus on Tyrion. Why would he want to kill Tywin in the show? Of course you can say that it was because of how Tywin treated him in life but then I can ask you why didn't Tyrion try to kill Tywin earlier? Or he didn't have to TRY but at least he could show his desire to kill Tywin. But no, in the show there is no sign that Tyrion wants to kill Tywin for treating him like shit. And also Tyrion himself says that he killed Tywin because of Shae and not because of some mistreatment. But then why is Tywin guilty for Shae? Tyrion sent her away. You can say that Tywin forced him to send her away but at the end it was Tyrion who refused Shae to leave King's Landing together so it was his decision to send her away. So then why would Tyrion want to risk his escape and kill Tywin in that precise moment? Why would he risk how life just to confront Tywin? And just to tell you it is not only my questions but what I read from discussion last year when episode with Tywin's death aired. Many posters expressed how ridiculous everything becomes if you take Tysha angle away because characters must have some motives to make irrational moves. And in the books Tysha was that motive but in the show there is no motive. Tyrion just does something irrational just because. Isn't that sort of writing very bad? Because if you write like that than anything is possible and explainable and that means that there is no logic in story. Don't you agree with that?

I think Tyrion went from resenting Tywin to wanting to kill him during the trial, when he realized that Tywin would gladly have him killed or sent to the Wall even though he knew he was innocent. Consider all the other bad things Tywin did to Tyrion in the show version: he admitted he wanted to kill him when he was first born (Tyrion didn't know that before), he refused to give him Casterly Rock even if there was no one else to take it, he blamed him for killing his mother, he belittled him for loving a whore and then he turned that whore against him and slept with her himself, and on top of all that is the Tysha story. Even if she was really a whore, as we are left to think in the show version, that is a horrific thing to do to your son.

So, while I missed the callback to the Tysha story, I kind of like that we got a good goodbye between Jaime and Tyrion, because it was pretty touching. As a book reader, I really hoped all that "where do whores go?' talk was going to lead to Tyrion actually finding Tysha. Sure doesn't look like it.

I guess, over all, I'm just tolerant of the show changing things. I sure as hell wish the books were finished so the show wouldn't spoil anything in them, but that's just not the case.

Edited to add: I think the timing of the killing was because it came after the trial, and because he was about to leave town. It was do it then or do it never.

[StepStark]

I think Tyrion went from resenting Tywin to wanting to kill him during the trial, when he realized that Tywin would gladly have him killed or sent to the Wall even though he knew he was innocent. Consider all the other bad things Tywin did to Tyrion in the show version: he admitted he wanted to kill him when he was first born (Tyrion didn't know that before), he refused to give him Casterly Rock even if there was no one else to take it, he blamed him for killing his mother, he belittled him for loving a whore and then he turned that whore against him and slept with her himself, and on top of all that is the Tysha story. Even if she was really a whore, as we are left to think in the show version, that is a horrific thing to do to your son.

So, while I missed the callback to the Tysha story, I kind of like that we got a good goodbye between Jaime and Tyrion, because it was pretty touching. As a book reader, I really hoped all that "where do whores go?' talk was going to lead to Tyrion actually finding Tysha. Sure doesn't look like it.

I guess, over all, I'm just tolerant of the show changing things. I sure as hell wish the books were finished so the show wouldn't spoil anything in them, but that's just not the case.

Edited to add: I think the timing of the killing was because it came after the trial, and because he was about to leave town. It was do it then or do it never.

But it is timing that is most absurd. He is in the middle of escape and his brother just saved him from certain dead and instead of finishing his escape he goes to confront Tywin. That is very unconvincing if you think about it. If he escapes he will have all the time in the world to make revenge against his father and his sister but by going to Tywin's room Tyrion is putting his head in danger clearly, and why would he do that if his brother just saved his head and they just parted ways like best friends? And if he's mad because of trial why doesn't he go to Cersei's room because she was who organized everything against Tyrion? And let not mention Tywin's stupid lines in that final dialogue with Tyrion: first he says that he wanted Tyrion dead all his life and then he says that he would never let someone execute Tyrion. So D&D changed many details just so they can have Tyrion kill Tywin but without Tysha, and because of that they ruined logic and dialogue and everything else. So it is not just about changes but about logic that is missing from the show.

[ummester]

I completely understand that many people feel this way about AFfC and ADwD but I submit that, actually, a great deal happens in those books that would make for some great tv. However, a lot of it is happening in the Riverlands with Jaime's and Brienne's story lines and that all was cut.

I'm of the opinion that even more should have been cut earlier on (e.g. Sansa's Vale story line and the entire Iron Born just to name a couple) so that we could have had some of the Riverlands now, for example. I think that would have greatly helped Jaime's and Brienne's arcs, characterization, etc. I could still maybe see no Lady Stoneheart and probably other things as well but that's just off the top of my head.

I do agree that showing the Riverlands at the start of Season 5 would have been a good choice - It only had to span Jamie timeslots for an episode or 2, perhaps 20 mins of screen time, to get it done.

[Witchy]

But it is timing that is most absurd. He is in the middle of escape and his brother just saved him from certain dead and instead of finishing his escape he goes to confront Tywin. That is very unconvincing if you think about it. If he escapes he will have all the time in the world to make revenge against his father and his sister but by going to Tywin's room Tyrion is putting his head in danger clearly, and why would he do that if his brother just saved his head and they just parted ways like best friends? And if he's mad because of trial why doesn't he go to Cersei's room because she was who organized everything against Tyrion? And let not mention Tywin's stupid lines in that final dialogue with Tyrion: first he says that he wanted Tyrion dead all his life and then he says that he would never let someone execute Tyrion. So D&D changed many details just so they can have Tyrion kill Tywin but without Tysha, and because of that they ruined logic and dialogue and everything else. So it is not just about changes but about logic that is missing from the show.

I do get your point. Without the Tysha reveal there isn't a switch that goes off causing him to rage and go kill Tywin. I think this issue is really only an issue for people who read the books and remember that part vividly. I admit, I only remember that part from the books vaguely, because I think I only read that book...twice. (I read each previous book every time a new one came out, so the earlier ones I've read more times...) Anyway, the reason I think this is a only a "logic" or motivation problem for those who know the original scene well and not for most show watchers is that the book reader has the advantage of being inside of Tyrion's mind and knowing many of his thoughts. We know he's not thinking of killing Tywin, and then after what Jaime tells him, he is. If you're a show watcher, you see him seething a lot about how poorly his sister and his father have treated him. He complains about it a lot, for good reason. You know he's pissed off about what happened. One second he's being rescued, the next he's talking to Jaime, the next he's going up the stairs, and then a shadow falls upon his face. When he enters the Hand of the King's chambers, most show watchers don't know where he is. The unsullied I know don't get it. Not even when they show the hand emblem. They think he's in Cersei's chambers to kill her. And then, there's Shae! Oh my God! A fight ensues, struggle. At that point he is so emotionally distraught over what he just did, he is ready to throw caution to the wind and kill Tywin. Did he know that's what he was going to do all along? We only wonder that afterward. And when we think about all the terrible things Tywin did to Tyrion, it makes sense. And from a logical standpoint, Tywin would have caught Tyrion if he were still alive. And in that way, it made a sort of sense to kill him. (not that I think that was really Tyrion's motive...it just makes plot sense for Tyrion's escape to succeed.)

[ummester]

There are 2 camps on this... the first camp believes that GRRM could have finished the story by book five without the introduction of all the new arcs and characters... I can see this side of the coin... It would still have been a great story...Similar to how the Harry Potter story was...

The second camp believes that 4-5 have reset the board, and brought in all the players from the places we have heard of, in great detail, and added an overall higher flavor and realism to the story... I am of this camp, and believe that the inclusion of all these new arcs will give us a story that is a once in a lifetime experience....

I get that some of this would not translate well to screen, I think most people who are upset at the show currently feel the same... however D&D are not just streamlining, they are cutting things to add their own story, and so far, other than Ros IMHO, their added characters lack depth and do not resonate with the audience. Also the changes to the nature of the current characters also is baffling...and losing the audience.

If the main arcs finish in the same place they would have if there was no AFFC/ADWD, they are filler. You may like them as filler - you may think they provide a fuller narrative experience - but it doesn't change what they are. I don't think ASoIaF was every going to be anything like Harry Potter though, with or without books 4 & 5.

Ros was ok, I didn't mind her - she was a simple character, kind of like that girl that goes to Hollywood with big dreams and gets her dreams trashed but she served that simple purpose, to show us Kings Landing was a nasty and corrupt place, just in case we missed it :D

Good storytelling should work on the simple and complex level - it should appeal to unsullied and fantasy nerds alike, with an immediate, uncomplicated and accessible plot that covers the same basic themes as the complicated presentation that the nerds can sink their teeth into underneath. I feel where the books and show are starting o diverge is that the books cater less well for the casual reader and the show caters less well for the book nerd - but I don't think D&D are telling their own story. I think readers will find that many of the off plot things they seem to be doing this season will tie into the same ending as GRRM planned.

[kefln]

IMHO GRRM came up with a story, it involved a fight over a throne, ice zombies and dragons.

The plot was supposed to be 3 books long, but he extended that, and then extended it again.

By book 3 he abruptly brought one of the main storylines to an end. The other two he had to leave alone because he'd have to stop writing. So he introduced a bucket load of sub characters, sub plots, fluff and filler. While a lot of it was good stuff that expanded the world, the main story was left on the back boiler waiting to be brought to the boil.

Are D&D being faithful? Yes and no.

The series isn't a paint by numbers. They are cutting through the books and reshaping. But the core story remains the same.

I read book one shortly after it came out in the late 90's and at this point I don't think GRRM is being faithful to the story, never mind D&D. At least the show is going to give us an ending. And considering everyone involved has stated that the shows ending is based on GRRMs planned finishing point, then yes I'd say it should be fairly faithful to unwritten books. Unwritten being the most important word there.

[StepStark]

I do get your point. Without the Tysha reveal there isn't a switch that goes off causing him to rage and go kill Tywin. I think this issue is really only an issue for people who read the books and remember that part vividly. I admit, I only remember that part from the books vaguely, because I think I only read that book...twice. (I read each previous book every time a new one came out, so the earlier ones I've read more times...) Anyway, the reason I think this is a only a "logic" or motivation problem for those who know the original scene well and not for most show watchers is that the book reader has the advantage of being inside of Tyrion's mind and knowing many of his thoughts. We know he's not thinking of killing Tywin, and then after what Jaime tells him, he is. If you're a show watcher, you see him seething a lot about how poorly his sister and his father have treated him. He complains about it a lot, for good reason. You know he's pissed off about what happened. One second he's being rescued, the next he's talking to Jaime, the next he's going up the stairs, and then a shadow falls upon his face. When he enters the Hand of the King's chambers, most show watchers don't know where he is. The unsullied I know don't get it. Not even when they show the hand emblem. They think he's in Cersei's chambers to kill her. And then, there's Shae! Oh my God! A fight ensues, struggle. At that point he is so emotionally distraught over what he just did, he is ready to throw caution to the wind and kill Tywin. Did he know that's what he was going to do all along? We only wonder that afterward. And when we think about all the terrible things Tywin did to Tyrion, it makes sense. And from a logical standpoint, Tywin would have caught Tyrion if he were still alive. And in that way, it made a sort of sense to kill him. (not that I think that was really Tyrion's motive...it just makes plot sense for Tyrion's escape to succeed.)

When you say that only book readers have problems with that scene it sound as if greater understanding of character is something that hurts watching experience. On contrary I think that it only helps because what character does in dramatic situations should be analyzed in details. And it either stands to test or not. Tyrion in the show doesn't stand and not because we don't know his thoughts but because someone who is so lucky to live wouldn't put his life in danger again for no reason. That makes Tyrion in the show to be someone who doesn't value his life at all. But that is not first time the show did it because they also did it in trial when he demanded trial by combat before Oberyn approached him. That was also extremely stupid and risky thing to do especially because Jaime again saved his life with deal with Tywin. So in a way the show is at least constant in screwing Tyrion's character: every time Jaime saves him he is going to do something stupid and suicidal just to make Tywin mad. And that is not good writing at all because it changes characterization without any explanation, because Tyrion was not stupid and suicidal up to that point. He was not suicidal even in battle but now he suddenly is when he's in trial? Very poor writing.

[ummester]

IMHO GRRM came up with a story, it involved a fight over a throne, ice zombies and dragons.

The plot was supposed to be 3 books long, but he extended that, and then extended it again.

By book 3 he abruptly brought one of the main storylines to an end. The other two he had to leave alone because he'd have to stop writing. So he introduced a bucket load of sub characters, sub plots, fluff and filler. While a lot of it was good stuff that expanded the world, the main story was left on the back boiler waiting to be brought to the boil.

Are D&D being faithful? Yes and no.

The series isn't a paint by numbers. They are cutting through the books and reshaping. But the core story remains the same.

I read book one shortly after it came out in the late 90's and at this point I don't think GRRM is being faithful to the story, never mind D&D. At least the show is going to give us an ending. And considering everyone involved has stated that the shows ending is based on GRRMs planned finishing point, then yes I'd say it should be fairly faithful to unwritten books. Unwritten being the most important word there.

That is a point I think I'm trying to get at - I phrase it as GRRM may have broken his story before D&D did - but the way you phrase it might be better, as it is less absolute. If GRRM isn't faithful to his original plan, if GRRM isn't certain what story he is telling - how can we possibly judge if that story is being adapted correctly?

[Hodor's Dragon]

That is a point I think I'm trying to get at - I phrase it as GRRM may have broken his story before D&D did - but the way you phrase it might be better, as it is less absolute. If GRRM isn't faithful to his original plan, if GRRM isn't certain what story he is telling - how can we possibly judge if that story is being adapted correctly?

Whether an adaptation is faithful to its source material doesn't really require a metaphysical exploration of what the author of the source material might have attempted to write had things gone differently. Or to put it differently, you don't compare an adaptation to all possible stories that might have been written, you compare it to the one that actually was.

[ummester]

Whether an adaptation is faithful to its source material doesn't really require a metaphysical exploration of what the author of the source material might have attempted to write had things gone differently. Or to put it differently, you don't compare an adaptation to all possible stories that might have been written, you compare it to the one that actually was.

But if you start adapting before the story is written, what you suggest is impossible.

ASoIaF shouldn't have been sold for adaptation before it was finished - that is the lesson here. GRRM shouldn't have let his baby go before it was grown and D&D shouldn't have taken on a half baked child. I hope it works out alright and that they don't fuck the child up because of their combined shortsightedness.

[jbob]

Considering you finished the books "just recently", maybe you should respect that a lot of us are more familiar with the characters than you are.

In his final chapter in ASoS, Jaime rejects Cersei. She laughs at him and mocks him. He frees Tyrion, confesses his role in what happened to Tysha, and Tyrion tells him that Cersei has "been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and probably Moonboy for all I know".

After that, we witness Jaime becoming more and more disillusioned with Cersei: he notices her bad decisions, her increasing alcoholism, her similarities to the Mad King, and then she sends him away and things only get worse, culminating in his burning of her letter.

In the show, they reunite in the season 4 finale and they have sex on the White Table. Like that is literally the polar opposite of what happens in the books, LOL. They're clearly setting up a huge ~plot-twist~ where Jaime suddenly turns on Cersei. And that's not true to his character, it's not true to their relationship in the books, and it's not good writing in the slightest. Keeping a character stagnating for a whole season so that they can have a turning point at the end shows a preference for soap-opera storytelling rather than highbrow human drama.

I don't get the impression that people are as familiar with the books as they think they are. Especially books they haven't read in years. Ultimately, people are upset that D+D isn't filming their interpretation (of course, maybe I'm not against what they do because they're in line with my interpretations?). People ignore or forget stuff from the books even. I mean take Sansa and LF. People are saying it doesn't make sense because Cersei will get upset once she finds that out. That exact same thing is brought up by Sansa in the books! She asks him what's going to happen when Cersei finds out about her. And he's only reply is if Cersei becomes a problem, he'll kill her off.

I disagree with Jaime. He spends most of AFFC thinking about Cersei and wanting and figuring how to go back to her. He doesn't actually believe Tyrion and does everything he can think of why Tyrion is lying.

A lot of those were in the show as well. We had a scene where Jaime questioned Cersei drinking so much. Same scene he questioned her reason for trusting Qyrborn. He called her a vicious woman. He sent Brienne to save Sansa and Arya instead of killing her. A lot of the reasons he doens't have sex with Cersei is because she doesn't want to have sex. But it's in her nature to use sex to manipulate people to do things for her. Then he saves Tyrion.

It's true book readers sometimes exaggerate the changes. But, on the question of Jamie...in the books his alienation from Cersei started almost as soon as he returned to King's Landing -- which was LAST SEASON. And he was the one who rejected her overtures, he is the one who criticizes her bad decisions and slowing it dawns on him that their relationship isn't what he thought it was.

In the show, we are at the halfway point in THIS season and he is still pining away with love for her, his Dorne mission is to prove his love for her, he's the one talking about the family position and inheritance and he spent all of last season basically begging her to reunite with him.

This is more than a delay, it's basically switching the roles and motivations of the two characters, where instead of Jamie looking at Cersei and saying 'not who I thought you were' she is doing it to him.

He's still pining away for Cersei in the middle of AFFC. It's not until he meets Lancel that he gets a complete break. He has criticised some of her decisions. The guy still loves her. Why wouldn't he still love her? It's not like she just started to become stupid and her character changed. He liked her enough with all her faults before. It makes sense he'd ignore some of it.