George R.R. Martin said talk about it. So let's talk about it. V.2

[StepStark]

Still waiting for an argument...

Youre going to wait for very long time. People that like this nonsense called GOT shouldn't be expected to produce arguments. They like the show that defies basic logic in every episode and they insult everyone who criticizes their beloved nonsense so in your place I wouldn't hope too much. As you can already see yourself by replies you receive.

[Borodin]

Youre going to wait for very long time. People that like this nonsense called GOT shouldn't be expected to produce arguments. They like the show that defies basic logic in every episode and they insult everyone who criticizes their beloved nonsense so in your place I wouldn't hope too much. As you can already see yourself by replies you receive.

Indeed. I don't see why it's so hard to admit that the show has done a terrible job in some respects but remains highly entertaining nonetheless. Those two positions aren't mutually exclusive, after all. One can think the show is fun to watch at the same time as observing that it has blundered the books in significant ways.

I'm even open to being convinced otherwise. But as you said, no one seems willing or able to offer up a rationale. It's all just "Troll!! Book purist!!" Yawn.

[TheLeviathan73]

You don't deserve it, but I'll try and be a nice guy. You keep repeating the parts of Martin's blog that fit your argument, but have ignored a few important points. Namely this:

There have been differences between the novels and the television show since the first episode of season one. And for just as long, I have been talking about the butterfly effect.

The point you keep making that the first season were faithfully adapted, is disputed by the artist himself. In fact, those "dragons" you have decided are "problems" were started, according to Martin, in season one. (first episode no less!) Coupled with his comments about intentionally writing an un-adaptable novel seem to reinforce his idea that the story has always been impossible to adapt.

You or I may feel it was adapted faithfully early on, but Martin doesn't. Nor might someone who is a big Loras Tyrell fan. Or an entire thread here with quibbles about the adaptation. (Including our first rape controversy!) Also here. And many more places.

Basically, there are a host of people you may want to read and consider who have already made these arguments all over the place. Including the early seasons you put above the problems you cite. Perhaps you should consider them first.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

Here are my main problems with D&D adaptation, in no particular order:

1. Their main complaint is that everything has to be condensed to 540 minutes/season and that's not enough time to do everything. This would be a valid argument if they didn't waste time constantly with things like: extra tits, extra Theon torture, Grey Worm <3 Missandei, the fucking 4+ minute conversation about BEETLES!, etc...

2. My biggest annoyance is that they assume the audience is dumb and cut out all of the subtle politics, you know, the game of thrones part. LF is apparently an idiot in the show who had to be saved by Sansa in season 4.

3. They change things for apparently no reason, like why were there no Ladies of Dorne present in season 4? They have apparently cut out the entire gender equality thing, because... why not?

4. There is lazy writing constantly and they give characters lines that just don't make any sense, and it really takes me out of the moment. Example: "I'm going to break the wheel." What wheel? There were Targaryens for 300 years, which you are one of Dany, then there were Baratheons for like 20 years. No wheel.

I'm sure I could find tons of examples of these, but I don't like to dwell on all my problems with the show. On the plus side, they have a huge budget and the actors are all great.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

Indeed. I don't see why it's so hard to admit that the show has done a terrible job in some respects but remains highly entertaining nonetheless. Those two positions aren't mutually exclusive, after all. One can think the show is fun to watch at the same time as observing that it has blundered the books in significant ways.

I'm even open to being convinced otherwise. But as you said, no one seems willing or able to offer up a rationale. It's all just "Troll!! Book purist!!" Yawn.

^^ YES EXACTLY!

[Cas Stark]

The onus is on those who make a claim that is contrary to the evidence, which is that HBO did a pretty good job of adapting the first three books. The burden of showing that Books 4 & 5 cannot be adapted when Books 1, 2, and 3 were, is on those making the claim.

Has anyone said they can't be adapted at all? If what you are talking about is adapting them at something like 90%, where we would have a season just for Feast

• Brienne wandered around meeting random extras looking for the red headed gal--e.g. nothing happens at all until she meets Stoneheart.

out of nowhere there is a whole Ironborn story, a kingsmoot where these new guys are introduced, and then Victarian on his boat--this will lack any context for the audience and nothing happens, they pick a king and Vic sails off.

Sansa and LF chatting it up in the Vale, nothing happens

Arya in Braavos, training, kills the NW guy

Sam and Gilly and Maester Aemon sailing around and then in Braavos, some stuff happens, none of it is interesting or important other than Aemon's death.

Everyone new in Dorne crowning Mycella, etc.

Cersei goes crazy-this is interesting

Jamie in the Riverlands-this is related and somewhat interesting.

No Jon, no Dany, no Bran, no Tyrion, no Stannis, no Theon.

Can you honestly not see that an adaptation that stuck this closely to the book would be extremely problematic. Of couse it "could" be done, but why do it? Who wants to watch an entire season of nothing happening and all new people, also doing random things that have little bearing on anything you have seen before and don't accomplish anything, Vic doesn't get to Essos, the only thing that is mildly actionish other than Cersei and Jamie is the Dorne stuff

[Borodin]

The point you keep making that the first season were faithfully adapted, is disputed by the artist himself.

In fact, those "dragons" you have decided are "problems" were started, according to Martin, in season one. (first episode no less!) Coupled with his comments about intentionally writing an un-adaptable novel seem to reinforce his idea that the story has always been impossible to adapt.

Perhaps you missed the posting wherein I replied to someone who asked me about which audiences and critics I think speak with authority on the adaptation. I said I don't listen to either D&D or GRRM for the simple fact that they are too mired in contractual and professional obligations to say anything helpful, as evidenced by the fact that they contradict themsleves as well as one another all the time. D&D claim that adaptation is difficult, but then go on to talk about how they invented plots and characters, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. Likewise, GRRM claims that D&D are doing a great job, but then drops some cryptic stuff about butterflies turning into dragons.

I look to people who have a good sense of both the books and the show (people like you?) to provide critical insight into the adaptation process, to answers question about what should and could be included or excluded. I look to people who are not under contracts or licensing agreements. Which is why I don't have much time for professional critics - people who are paid to please readers.

That's why I'm here asking people like you to back up claims about adaptation. GRRM and D&D and professional critics aren't going to give us much direction.

[StepStark]

Indeed. I don't see why it's so hard to admit that the show has done a terrible job in some respects but remains highly entertaining nonetheless. Those two positions aren't mutually exclusive, after all. One can think the show is fun to watch at the same time as observing that it has blundered the books in significant ways.

I'm even open to being convinced otherwise. But as you said, no one seems willing or able to offer up a rationale. It's all just "Troll!! Book purist!!" Yawn.

To tell you truthfully I think biggest mistake is trying to bridge in some rational discussion some things that shouldn't ever belong together. For example Littlefinger and Sansa make completely irrational move to marry Sansa to Ramsay. How can that be rationally analyzed? How can that be rationally compared to anything that is logical? There is no way to compare that idiocy to anything from the books because nothing from the books is nearly as idiotic as that. And that is why thing here always escalate in some wars because we're actually discussing things that doesn't belong to same realms. One is from realm of reason and intrigue and good storytelling but other is from realm of nonsense. Those two can't ever be compared in any reasonable way and that is main mistake in this discussions. And show apologists because they are often frustrated with their position to defend nonsense often turn to insults but in reality there's nothing else they can do. They can only admit that the show is nonsensical but if they were capable of that they wouldn't be show apologists to being with.

[Borodin]

Has anyone said they can't be adapted at all? If what you are talking about is adapting them at something like 90%, where we would have a season just for Feast...

As others have mentioned, we could easily combine AFFC and ADWD into a season if the absence of main characters in AFFC is going to cause everyone to soil their pants. I have no problem with this. It would be relatively easy.

[TheLeviathan73]

Has anyone said they can't be adapted at all? If what you are talking about is adapting them at something like 90%, where we would have a season just for Feast

I think this is important for clarification and a major issue with why Borodin is not getting what he wants.

I believe it is impossible to adapt any of the books 100% for a variety of reasons, but I'd hope everyone would universally agree to that. So what exactly are we talking about here? Set out some of the basic presuppositions you are working from.

What would make something faithfully adapted or not? If one character is left out....is that unfaithful? What constitutes being possible or impossible?

[Borodin]

To tell you truthfully I think biggest mistake is trying to bridge in some rational discussion some things that shouldn't ever belong together. For example Littlefinger and Sansa make completely irrational move to marry Sansa to Ramsay. How can that be rationally analyzed? How can that be rationally compared to anything that is logical? There is no way to compare that idiocy to anything from the books because nothing from the books is nearly as idiotic as that.

I'm open to hearing an argument in which it makes sense that Littlefinger arranged for Sansa to marry Ramsay, in which it is not a complete reversal for her character arc, in which it can be reconciled with Littlefinger's love for Sansa that he put her in danger by marrying her to a psychopath and telling Cersei exactly where Sansa (who Cersei believes conspired to murder her son) is located.

I'm open to hearing why that is so much better than dropping in once in a while on Jeyne Poole and Sansa in the Vale.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

I thought of a perfect example of the show making a terrible adaptation mistake:

Olly is going to stab Jon in the season 5 finale next week. HE IS NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE FUCKING NIGHT'S WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is supposed to be a complex event in which Jon makes a legitimately questionable decision as LC, having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WILDLINGS, and his own men decide to take him out like Caesar. The show version is going to be shallow and cheap.

Now you could say, "Oh, well we weren't able to figure out how to do the whole Pink Letter thing, so they needed another reason to kill Jon."

Yeah, except no. Yes you need another reason to kill Jon, but in staying true to the essence of the story, D&D should have come up with another reason at least for Jon's own men to stab him. If the reason was still the wildlings and Jon was going to be stabbed by his own men, I would still be mad, but I would be less mad than I am about it being Olly. And that would have taken no effort on their part to have Alliser Thorne and co. stab Jon. I think D&D literally said, "You know what would be really cool? If the kid stabbed Jon! Because that would be more dramatic and we clearly don't understand the story!"

George's mistake was not asking D&D more follow up questions after "Who is Jon's mother?" They are not the right people to adapt the books.

[Cas Stark]

As others have mentioned, we could easily combine AFFC and ADWD into a season if the absence of main characters in AFFC is going to cause everyone to soil their pants. I have no problem with this. It would be relatively easy.

Okay. But, we can't keep all of the storylines can we? In 10 episodes, something has to be cut.

The problem with the show isn't that it has cut things, it's that it is sloppy, so when it makes changes it doesn't keep track of them, like the stupid necklaces, or the black haired baby, LOLZ. If you want to make Cersei nice and give her and Bob a dead baby you can't also put in the prophecy and literally have young Cersei ask if she and the king will have the children and have the answer be NO. The show never lives with their decisions, they never think them through.

[TheLeviathan73]

I thought of a perfect example of the show making a terrible adaptation mistake:

Olly is going to stab Jon in the season 5 finale next week. HE IS NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE FUCKING NIGHT'S WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is supposed to be a complex event in which Jon makes a legitimately questionable decision as LC, having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WILDLINGS, and his own men decide to take him out like Caesar. The show version is going to be shallow and cheap.

Personally, I'm hoping the show version makes a lot more sense than the book. It's just my impression, but I thought Jon running off to fight the Boltons was very out of character and used as a convenient plot twist to kill and resurrect him. I've never liked it. Not that I'll like Olly stabbing him any better.

[TheLeviathan73]

Okay. But, we can't keep all of the storylines can we? In 10 episodes, something has to be cut.

Right, that's the part that's important. The storylines I pick and you pick might have good arguments, but reasonable people should agree that there will have to be whittling of those two huge books in order to tell the story well and do justice to the characters. So if we openly admit that some has to be cut, is that saying it is "impossible". I think that is what is being argued by Borodin, maybe I'm wrong.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

I'm open to hearing an argument in which it makes sense that Littlefinger arranged for Sansa to marry Ramsay, in which it is not a complete reversal for her character arc, in which it can be reconciled with Littlefinger's love for Sansa that he put her in danger by marrying her to a psychopath and telling Cersei exactly where Sansa (who Cersei believes conspired to murder her son) is located.

I'm open to hearing why that is so much better than dropping in once in a while on Jeyne Poole and Sansa in the Vale.

I'm on your side, but I think there are much better examples, and bad examples don't stand a chance against show apologists. You could argue that D&D want their lead actors doing scenes together, and it's only practical from a logistical standpoint (you only have 3 crews filming) to bunch characters together. Also according to them, LF has no idea Ramsay is a psycho, which also doesn't make sense.

One example no one ever talks about: Why did Drogo rape Dany? Does not happen that way in AGOT. I'm also surprised with all the complaints about Sansa that it seems everyone forgot Dany was raped too. I guess the argument is, oh we wanted our main protagonist to be a rape victim, because we think it will make her character better!

[Borodin]

Okay. But, we can't keep all of the storylines can we? In 10 episodes, something has to be cut. The problem with the show isn't that it has cut things, it's that it is sloppy, so when it makes changes it doesn't keep track of them, like the stupid necklaces, or the black haired baby, LOLZ. If you want to make Cersei nice and give her and Bob a dead baby you can't also put in the prophecy and literally have young Cersei ask if she and the king will have the children and have the answer be NO. The show never lives with their decisions, they never think them through.

Agreed. I think a good screenwrites could easily pick 13 storylines from AFFC and ADWD to follow through in a way that is authentic and entertaining. I'm not confident D&D could do it. At least, their track suggests they cannot.

[Cas Stark]

I'm open to hearing an argument in which it makes sense that Littlefinger arranged for Sansa to marry Ramsay, in which it is not a complete reversal for her character arc, in which it can be reconciled with Littlefinger's love for Sansa that he put her in danger by marrying her to a psychopath and telling Cersei exactly where Sansa (who Cersei believes conspired to murder her son) is located.

I'm open to hearing why that is so much better than dropping in once in a while on Jeyne Poole and Sansa in the Vale.

That's a separate issue than whether Feast could or should have been adapted as is.

There is no excuse for that stupidity just as there is no excuse for the Dorne plot. Jamie Lannister, the kingslayer, who has, IN THE SHOW, already been recognized by 2 sets of random strangers, when he still had 2 hands, now he has 1 hand, is going to "sneak" into Dorne, with 1 guy and steal Myrcella? Unless the purpose is to make him seem brutally stupid, I couldn't tell you why they came up with this as the rationale to get him to Dorne. There must be 100 better ideas.

This is the problem with the show, their invented stuff is terrible. But that doesn't mean still that a 1-1 adaptation is going to work on the screen.

We might not have needed Jeyne Poole at all, she was a diversion anyway, the purpose of Winterfell was for Theon to get back his identity and give us insight into Roose/Ramsay and set up the battle.

[StepStark]

Has anyone said they can't be adapted at all? If what you are talking about is adapting them at something like 90%, where we would have a season just for Feast

• Brienne wandered around meeting random extras looking for the red headed gal--e.g. nothing happens at all until she meets Stoneheart.
  
• out of nowhere there is a whole Ironborn story, a kingsmoot where these new guys are introduced, and then Victarian on his boat--this will lack any context for the audience and nothing happens, they pick a king and Vic sails off.
  
• Sansa and LF chatting it up in the Vale, nothing happens
  
• Arya in Braavos, training, kills the NW guy
  
• Sam and Gilly and Maester Aemon sailing around and then in Braavos, some stuff happens, none of it is interesting or important other than Aemon's death.
  
• Everyone new in Dorne crowning Mycella, etc.
  
• Cersei goes crazy-this is interesting
  
• Jamie in the Riverlands-this is related and somewhat interesting.
  
• No Jon, no Dany, no Bran, no Tyrion, no Stannis, no Theon.
  

Can you honestly not see that an adaptation that stuck this closely to the book would be extremely problematic. Of couse it "could" be done, but why do it? Who wants to watch an entire season of nothing happening and all new people, also doing random things that have little bearing on anything you have seen before and don't accomplish anything, Vic doesn't get to Essos, the only thing that is mildly actionish other than Cersei and Jamie is the Dorne stuff

Well you conveniently forgot about all that is happening to Brienne in AFFC. There's Pod and there that fight in Whispeers and that orphans she defends from Brave Companions. All that happens before she meets LSH. And that would make pretty interesting arc for TV season with two small scale but intense battles and some suspense and some investigating and also don't forget all that post-war horror she witnesses. Also Ironborn are just full of stuff that would make great TV material like Kingsmoot for example but also Aeron's plotting against Euron and also Victarion's battle that is very easy to be put in context. I'm surprised you missed that context in the book but it would be really easy to provide that context in the show. Few lines of dialogue would solve everything. And so on. All in all, it would make decent season which would be much better then actual show this year.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

Personally, I'm hoping the show version makes a lot more sense than the book. It's just my impression, but I thought Jon running off to fight the Boltons was very out of character and used as a convenient plot twist to kill and resurrect him. I've never liked it. Not that I'll like Olly stabbing him any better.

Regardless of what you think of Jon's logic in the book, it is the motivation of his men that is more important here. And the fact that his own men stabbed him, and that's not going to happen in the show.