The Main Problem With This Season

[lancerman]

I think people should just accept that people very invested in the books (most of them disliking at least some of the show choices) need some place to discuss their adaptation with all the allacrity and "insufferably haughty attitude" they want. Be them (us) a minority or not, it's some kind of collective therapy for lots of books lovers. And this forum full of passionate purists is the best place for that, as show the fabulous familial ambiance of the Rant and Rave Threads (I'd like the site to install a whole Show Rant & Rave forum next season, it would make easier to find the best messages back, by the way).

The real anomaly for me are all the people who pop on westeros.org every show season only to defend the idea the show is better than the books, D&D are fixing pretended GRMM mistakes, celebrate the worse character assassinations, and be all "ahaha purists you are a minority". I don't know any book purist spending his time on HBO forums to teach them the books are way better than the show and D&D suck, or signing on IWC to praise AFFC or GRRM's writing pace. I guess it's because most purists agree that going to the internet community where you'll find the most people hostile to an opinion only to defend the contrary one is not a correct attitude but some form of trolling.

this first ^^^ thanks

keeping in mind the quote above,I think the main problem with this season has nothing to do with the time it would have taken to shoot a better adaptation of the books, nor with the plotlines of affc/adwd wich would have been too slow ( come on it's been what 10 years since feast and we ve had 10 years of rereading and overthinking on these books, don t think slow is a good definition of Martin s work). It s about bad choices! I mean

1) Jaime s arc from his change about cersei to the riverlands, edmure and the noose, the defiant blackfish.5 min every two episodes. 10 times better storyline than his journey with bronn.

2)brienne s arc. why have rorge and biter killed by the hound?that was a waste of time imo. brienne meeting with gendry on a rainy night and then confronting alone with them. her capture by Bwb (and omg thats Cat!!!!). her going to jaime.15minutes all,maybe less. 10 times better than her wondering around with pod after sansa. (if the big point was her fighting the hound scene I think we re watching the show for different reasons)

3)mance s disguise. 5 minutes instead of some chubby sam-gilly scene (wtf)

4)aegon. why no aegon? they ve sent mace away from kl and trapped loras, cersei s grip on power is gone in 6/7 ep. why no fucking aegon and no golden company? even if he s not so important to the final fate of everybody, it would have been a good great shock to see Rhaegar s boy preparing to invade westeroos, and so obviously

obviously5)Tyrion! he s the audience s little good imp,let him have his way with griff,everybody would have enjoyed it for ep 1 and 2 and then he gets kidnapped. in the space of 5min for 3 episodes.( 1st scene varys gives him to them and tells tyrion to trust griff, it makes as much sense as anything they ve done so far).

6) Dorne. you put arianne in the scene where doran tells areo hotah "we have to protect them", next time you show her with some friends talking about crowning myrcella, they make off with her and get caught. she s sent to kl to the small council after doran tells her he s going to raise the banners for daenerys. (audience goes boom)

7) davos and manderly and the frey scene and his maimed hands on the walls and the rickon reckoning!!!!too long? too tedious?

I could go on but i m probably being tedious, so i ll just say that jon s arc is satisfying in view of all the others.....

[Dragon in the North]

I just don't understand the rationale here. If Cersei's plan in the books was convoluted, then how convoluted is arming the faith in order to get Margaery arrested for perjury by lying about a mark of Loras' ass? Besides which Cersei in the books is supposed to be batshit. She's basically bashing her own head against a wall because she's jealous of a teenage girl. That's the beauty of her story. In the show Cersei is completely justified in all her paranoia.

The Wall...had a flashy, cliche battle scene. I guess if that impresses you then cool I guess?

Meereen barely even had a story this season. Like Dany randomly decides to marry Hizdahr, Barristan is randomly murdered, Tyrion randomly appears, The Sons of the Harpy randomly attack everyone at the fighting pits with seemingly no plan and then Dany randomly flies off on drogon.

Cersei's madness in the books was fun to read, but it also made her downfall predictable. To me, predictable is boring. Tommen caught between two queens who are wrestling for control is far more interesting, imo.

It wasn't just about the fight scene, but that they established the White Walkers as the enemy of the story. Until that point, they've only been an afterthought in the viewers' minds. In the books, we have Jon counting food. But nice try in pointing me out as an action junky. Seeing as I enjoyed Jaime's Riverland arc more even though his Dorne arc had more action, you're obviously wrong.

Meereen's story is the same as in the books. Dany is trying to rule while keeping both the former slaves happy and the masters happy by making compromises. However, instead of a bloated battle sequence, she's facing an insurgency within her city's walls.

[protar]

@Lancerman

If cutting Lady Stoneheart out leaves two major characters without stories for a season, that's probably a big sign that she is important. Even if Lady Stoneheart doesn't have some huge role outside of those character's arcs, it's still clear that she has huge thematic importance to the series, about the devastation the obsession for revenge can bring.

If Aegon has no importance then sure he can be cut. But why the hell would you ever think that? It's like hearing about the horcruxes in Half Blood Prince and then assuming that they won't be important in Deathly Hallows just because they were introduced late. Same deal with Arianne. The dude's already invaded Westeros and taken the hardest to take castle in the realm.

[lancerman]

@Lancerman

If cutting Lady Stoneheart out leaves two major characters without stories for a season, that's probably a big sign that she is important. Even if Lady Stoneheart doesn't have some huge role outside of those character's arcs, it's still clear that she has huge thematic importance to the series, about the devastation the obsession for revenge can bring.

If Aegon has no importance then sure he can be cut. But why the hell would you ever think that? It's like hearing about the horcruxes in Half Blood Prince and then assuming that they won't be important in Deathly Hallows just because they were introduced late. Same deal with Arianne. The dude's already invaded Westeros and taken the hardest to take castle in the realm.

Again do you want to pay Michelle Fairley, undo some of the impact of the Red Wedding, set up more Riverland scenes, all for something that could be as simple as Jamie and Brienne meeting LSH and possibly killing her right there? It could literally be something that's resolved in one scene. Is it really worth the investment and huge implications of bringing Catelyn back just for what might be a small poignant moment? If you had all the time and resources in the world sure. But it's a lot of set up for something that might not matter.

Same with Aegon, even worse because that takes up more time and is almost like bringing in a whole new set and cast to the series for that one plot.

And before you compare it to Horcruxes, let's remind everyone that in AFFC we had this sizeable Dornish plotline which built up to the reveal that Doran had planned to send Quentyn to marry Dany. That whole plot led up to that. Then Quentyn went to Dorne and was burnt by a dragon and that was that. Before that, I'm going to assume a lot of people here would have said "oh you HAVE to include Quentyn, why would GRRM even put that in there". Now I don't think many people care that he was cut.

So once again, we don't know where it is leading.

[Desert Fox]

Since TWOW and ADOS haven't been written the show has to deviate. The HBO writers may know where the big plot lines end up, but they don't know where all of them go. So they are forced to begin the AFFC/ADOD plot lines without knowing where they are going to end or they can just skip it.

The show has two huge problems: 1) too many plot lines and characters to keep straight with the limited time constraints and 2) the pacing and plot structure of episodes and seasons is slow or non-existent.

1) A TV show can't reach the same level of detail as the books in the timespan allotted. It is easier to remind people who characters are in text. Exposition is hard in TV shows. You need to have character who always needs stuff explained (which is impossible here) or you need people to be doing idiot lecture for no reason.

The TV show struggles to keep the characters and plotlines going. For example, TV show didn't have enough time to explain the strategies of the war of the five kings. You could only tell Rob was winning because Tywin kept saying he was. To a viewer, it just seemed like Rob was marching to Kings Landing and it just took forever.

So, purists would say to just include more dialog about the strategy. But then you have to cut somewhere else. The obvious retort is to cut out pure show inventions--like Grayworms lame romance or the second battle at craster keep. But until the fifth season, the new additions were either took up little time, where worth it (aria and twywin or Hound), or were used to give the main characters something do during a gap in their story. Even if you cut out any non-book story from S1-4, there is barely enough to fit one or two minor stories that were omitted. Through season 4, I think they did a decent enough job of not creating too much unnecessary show only stuff. And things like Grey Worm being hot of the slave girl have very little screen time. Like under a minute each scene spread over 2 seasons. Sure you could cut it, but you'd never build another story line in the time allotted.

2) Since there are so many story lines it's impossible to make meaningful progress in any given episode. One solution is group storylines so that you might get a Sansa heavy line one week, and then not see her for two. GOT is increasingly splitting episodes up so that the main cast isn't in each episode, but in my opinion there hasn't been enough. I think each time a character is in an episode they should be involved in a subplot. Many times D&D just sort of check in on a plot line without a beginning, middle and end. That is shitty storytelling.

D&D don't use the episode format; they essentially use a season long format. Some other great shows (like the wire) have treated single seasons as one long story to great effect. So it can be done, but I don't think D&D can do that. Partially because there are so many plot lines. The Wire had probably half the plotlines going at the same time. IMO GOT should have 4-6 subplots in a single episode, each with complete mini story. Better if they could match the tone or contrast tone, etc. But to do that they'd need to be less faithful and invent some subplots, drop other plots that couldn't be set up.

But the major issue is that D&D don't do the season long format well either. During S2, S3, and S5 D&D used the last episode of the preceding season as a set up. Then the first 7ish episodes are treated as one long set up to the "action" of the late episodes. The only reason S4 isn't this way is because it's an adaptation of all of climax in ASOS. The setup is too formulaic. It leaves the first episodes very boring. Maybe you can blame this on the pacing of the books, but D&D went totally off the books in S5 and the first six episodes were still boring.

Why does every plot have to peak in the same episodes. IT's cool to have 3 amazing episodes in a row, but its poor utilization.

Season 5 has other issues--like a shitty Dorne plot--but the biggest problem was being boring until the very end of episode 6.

[protar]

Cersei's madness in the books was fun to read, but it also made her downfall predictable. To me, predictable is boring. Tommen caught between two queens who are wrestling for control is far more interesting, imo.

It wasn't just about the fight scene, but that they established the White Walkers as the enemy of the story. Until that point, they've only been an afterthought in the viewers' minds. In the books, we have Jon counting food. But nice try in pointing me out as an action junky. Seeing as I enjoyed Jaime's Riverland arc more even though his Dorne arc had more action, you're obviously wrong.

Meereen's story is the same as in the books. Dany is trying to rule while keeping both the former slaves happy and the masters happy by making compromises. However, instead of a bloated battle sequence, she's facing an insurgency within her city's walls.

And Cersei's downfall wasn't obvious here? When she arms the faith militant for no reason? At least in the books she has a descent enough reason. KL hasn't been the worst plot line this season but how anyone can take the ass birthmark perjury plot seriously is beyond me. Like seriously let's take a step back here. Who ever thought those words would be typed seriously in succession on this forum? And you're defending it? Cersei's downfall in the books is really supposed to be obvious, like watching a train wreck. So you can't really fault it on that front. The show tried to make it an actual "battle" between Cersei and Margaery, but still made it predictable.

As to Hardhome, I'm just pointing out that there's a lot wrong with Jon's arc this season so saying you liked it better in the show because of Hardhome kind of does mean you're an action junkie. At least in this specific scenario. The pacing is all off in Jon's story - because they wanted to make the battle at the Wall the episode 9 moment last season they had to rush through his election (and Sam's growing political skill). And they're trying to represent the centuries of grievances the Night's Watch has against the Wildlings with Olly - who has only just joined the Watch. Then there's Hardhome itself: Loads of action cliches, sexism, illogic (like why Jon is even here, he hurts negotiations far more than helps them). And then after Jon turns up at the Wall he doesn't even mention the White Walkers to Thorne or anyone.

Dany's story is just so simplified that it has no weight. By the time Tyrion turns up she's practically won so...what was this about her struggling to rule? Slaver's Bay is at peace, the Harpy attacks have stopped, there's no Pale Mare. Things just happen randomly without context. She randomly decides to marry Hizdahr; one day she can't control her dragons the next she can; Tyrion pops up one day to say hi but has nothing to do because again...Dany's won. Then some random fighting and a random dragon.

This is very much the same problem with Winterfell. It's so simplified that there is no weight. And then there's the added disgust factor due to the fact that the only plot point they considered worth keeping in Winterfell was a rape scene. Not the murder mysteries or the northern lord, not frey pies or Theon's redemption. None of that.

[protar]

Again do you want to pay Michelle Fairley, undo some of the impact of the Red Wedding, set up more Riverland scenes, all for something that could be as simple as Jamie and Brienne meeting LSH and possibly killing her right there? It could literally be something that's resolved in one scene. Is it really worth the investment and huge implications of bringing Catelyn back just for what might be a small poignant moment? If you had all the time and resources in the world sure. But it's a lot of set up for something that might not matter.

Same with Aegon, even worse because that takes up more time and is almost like bringing in a whole new set and cast to the series for that one plot.

And before you compare it to Horcruxes, let's remind everyone that in AFFC we had this sizeable Dornish plotline which built up to the reveal that Doran had planned to send Quentyn to marry Dany. That whole plot led up to that. Then Quentyn went to Dorne and was burnt by a dragon and that was that. Before that, I'm going to assume a lot of people here would have said "oh you HAVE to include Quentyn, why would GRRM even put that in there". Now I don't think many people care that he was cut.

So once again, we don't know where it is leading.

How does Uncat take away from the Red Wedding? Like how can someone miss the point this badly? Stoneheart is not Cat. She's a hollow shell of hate and vengeance. She makes the Red Wedding so much more tragic.

Dorne was not solely to set up Quentyn. It may have escaped your notice but Arianne and Doran are still alive doing important things. Besides - Quentyn is important. He's vital to Arianne's character development and likely his death will be the thing that turns Dorne off of siding with Dany.

And again...Aegon and Arianne are clearly important. You're familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty yes? That sort of logic should be applied here. Until Arianne and Aegon trip and break their necks five pages in TWOW, it should be assumed - given the amount of time Martin spent on them in Feast and Dance - that they will be important. You're quite right we don't know what's going to happen. So let's use some common sense and go based on what we already have. Which is a lot of time spent on these new characters. Now, I'm sure that some facsimile of the plot can be adapted without those characters. But the same is probably true of Robb or Renly or even Ned. Why not just cut out all the politics and have one season of fighting zombies?

[thehandwipes]

Would the WF rape have been “overlooked” though if the show-runners did decide to introduce Jeyne Poole into Ramsay’s storyline and keep Sansa safe in the Vale?

Dany gets raped by Drogo in season one, episode one. Since we’re less than an hour into the overall story, no one is really invested in either character yet. By the end of season one, Dany/Drogo are (for the most part) fan favorites—initial reactions to their first encounter almost forgotten. Five seasons later, Sansa gets raped (after having countless episodes worth of character development) by the most universally hated character on the show and the internet breaks.

Edit: Let it be known, I find both scenes extremely distasteful. I just think the way fan reactions have shifted from season 1 to season 5 to be interesting.

Jeyne's story is relevant to Reek's, she belongs there.

There have always been issues with the way GOT treats its female characters. In the universe D&D have created, sex workers give the money back when they enjoy it too much and offer freebies to anyone who can make them laugh. The show has never really tried to handle its female characters well (with the possible exception of Cersei) reducing them to caricatures.

When season 3 included that tasteless storyline (plot is too strong a word for it) for Theon, some people were pretty disgusted. What happens to Theon in the books is much worse but its anecdotal and after the fact, Theon isn't in ASOS at all. So D&D went off book and the results were pretty awful. Nasty violence with no plot or point. And the scene with Tansy and Myranda right before his castration really demonstrated the lack of seriousness put into Theon's arc. There was a lot of concern that D&D without the books to guide the story were going to give us "gritty," "shocking" nonsense. Sound and fury, signifying nothing; literally, a tale told by an idiot, or idiots.

Season 4 confirmed those fears, starting with Cersei's rape in the sept. In the books, this is the scene in which Jamie and Cersei are reunited for the first time since the first book. They have a creepy quickie there in the sept while Joffrey lies in state. In the show, Jaime has been back for some time (he was there when Joffrey died) and Cersei has refused to resume their sexual relationship. After Joffrey's death, he comes across Cersei in the sept grieving. He calls her "a hateful woman", forces her down on all fours while she pleads with him to stop, and rapes her. What's worse is that this doesn't actually affect the plot. We spent all of season 3 establishing that Jaime isn't the monster we thought he was, then he rapes his grieving sister at the foot of their son's coffin, then he goes back to trying to help Tyrion, cracking wise with Bronn, and telling his sister he loves her. No biggie. Cersei meanwhile goes back to keeping her distance from Jaime, being "a hateful woman," until she decides out of blue she loves him and kisses his golden hand.

This was followed by D&D's second major departure from the books: the rape orgy at Craster's Keep. At that point they lost all credibility, goodwill, and the benefit of the doubt. With me at least.

D&D are bad writers and bad storytellers and their rape fetish is ruining the show.

[Dragon in the North]

And Cersei's downfall wasn't obvious here? When she arms the faith militant for no reason? At least in the books she has a descent enough reason. KL hasn't been the worst plot line this season but how anyone can take the ass birthmark perjury plot seriously is beyond me. Like seriously let's take a step back here. Who ever thought those words would be typed seriously in succession on this forum? And you're defending it? Cersei's downfall in the books is really supposed to be obvious, like watching a train wreck. So you can't really fault it on that front. The show tried to make it an actual "battle" between Cersei and Margaery, but still made it predictable.

As to Hardhome, I'm just pointing out that there's a lot wrong with Jon's arc this season so saying you liked it better in the show because of Hardhome kind of does mean you're an action junkie. At least in this specific scenario. The pacing is all off in Jon's story - because they wanted to make the battle at the Wall the episode 9 moment last season they had to rush through his election (and Sam's growing political skill). And they're trying to represent the centuries of grievances the Night's Watch has against the Wildlings with Olly - who has only just joined the Watch. Then there's Hardhome itself: Loads of action cliches, sexism, illogic (like why Jon is even here, he hurts negotiations far more than helps them). And then after Jon turns up at the Wall he doesn't even mention the White Walkers to Thorne or anyone.

Dany's story is just so simplified that it has no weight. By the time Tyrion turns up she's practically won so...what was this about her struggling to rule? Slaver's Bay is at peace, the Harpy attacks have stopped, there's no Pale Mare. Things just happen randomly without context. She randomly decides to marry Hizdahr; one day she can't control her dragons the next she can; Tyrion pops up one day to say hi but has nothing to do because again...Dany's won. Then some random fighting and a random dragon.

This is very much the same problem with Winterfell. It's so simplified that there is no weight. And then there's the added disgust factor due to the fact that the only plot point they considered worth keeping in Winterfell was a rape scene. Not the murder mysteries or the northern lord, not frey pies or Theon's redemption. None of that.

Cersei's downfall wasn't as predictable here because her plan was successful. She armed the Faith Militant and sent them after the Tyrells to give herself plausible deniability. Rather than making shit up about Margarey, by arresting Loras, Cersei is able to manipulate her into committing a real crime. The birthmark was simply evidence to be used against them.

What battle would you say isn't cliche? Battle of Blackwater had a bunch of the main characters acting like juggernauts, Tyrion especially in the books, only for them to be saved at the last minute when all hope was lost. Battle of the Wall similarly ends with a last minute save. Did you have any problem with those battles? And they are not giving all of the wilding hate to Olly. Did you not see the scene where Jon announced his intentions of allowing the wildings south of the Wall? Every Night's Watch member was against it, including Edd, one of Jon's closest allies. Jon being there was an insurance that he was true to his word and that it wasn't a trick. The wildings needed to hear the proposition from the man who was making it, not from some envoy. And how do you know that Jon didn't tell Thorne about the White Walkers? Because you didn't see it? The show doesn't have to spell everything out for the audience.

The Harpy's attack haven't stopped yet, obviously. They were simply planning their next big attack. Her marrying Hizdahr wasn't handled very well, I agree, but her reasons for doing so should be clear. She's making a compromise in an attempt to unite the Meereenese people. Tyrion's role will be more suited when she finally invades Westeros.

I agree with you about the Winterfell plot, so no need for discussion.

[protar]

Cersei's downfall wasn't as predictable here because her plan was successful. She armed the Faith Militant and sent them after the Tyrells to give herself plausible deniability. Rather than making shit up about Margarey, by arresting Loras, Cersei is able to manipulate her into committing a real crime. The birthmark was simply evidence to be used against them.

What battle would you say isn't cliche? Battle of Blackwater had a bunch of the main characters acting like juggernauts, Tyrion especially in the books, only for them to be saved at the last minute when all hope was lost. Battle of the Wall similarly ends with a last minute save. Did you have any problem with those battles? And they are not giving all of the wilding hate to Olly. Did you not see the scene where Jon announced his intentions of allowing the wildings south of the Wall? Every Night's Watch member was against it, including Edd, one of Jon's closest allies. Jon being there was an insurance that he was true to his word and that it wasn't a trick. The wildings needed to hear the proposition from the man who was making it, not from some envoy. And how do you know that Jon didn't tell Thorne about the White Walkers? Because you didn't see it? The show doesn't have to spell everything out for the audience.

The Harpy's attack haven't stopped yet, obviously. They were simply planning their next big attack. Her marrying Hizdahr wasn't handled very well, I agree, but her reasons for doing so should be clear. She's making a compromise in an attempt to unite the Meereenese people. Tyrion's role will be more suited when she finally invades Westeros.

I agree with you about the Winterfell plot, so no need for discussion.

Still seemed pretty obvious to me that Cersei's downfall was made very obvious and heavyhanded. They made her arm the faith militant for really no reason, so it seemed like a very artificial and transparent way to set that up.

My complaint with Hardhome is not just that it had cliches. I liked Hardhome well enough. But Jon's story has a lot of problems this season, so for one episode to make up for it it has to be amazing. And Hardhome really wasn't if you actually look at it. It was fine. Nothing more. You can't compare it to Blackwater. Blackwater had some cliches but it topped off a great arc. So they're more forgiveable.

ETA: On Dany. She really just randomly decides to marry Hizdahr one day. It's not an illogical choice but there's no set up, she forces him to marry her. Dany's arc this season has just been jumping from one thing to the next with no context. And yes I'm sure Tyrion will be of more use when Dany gets to Westeros. So why speed up their meeting? It's just hollow fanservice. It's sad how many people fall for this stuff hook, line and sinker.

[lancerman]

How does Uncat take away from the Red Wedding? Like how can someone miss the point this badly? Stoneheart is not Cat. She's a hollow shell of hate and vengeance. She makes the Red Wedding so much more tragic.

Dorne was not solely to set up Quentyn. It may have escaped your notice but Arianne and Doran are still alive doing important things. Besides - Quentyn is important. He's vital to Arianne's character development and likely his death will be the thing that turns Dorne off of siding with Dany.

And again...Aegon and Arianne are clearly important. You're familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty yes? That sort of logic should be applied here. Until Arianne and Aegon trip and break their necks five pages in TWOW, it should be assumed - given the amount of time Martin spent on them in Feast and Dance - that they will be important. You're quite right we don't know what's going to happen. So let's use some common sense and go based on what we already have. Which is a lot of time spent on these new characters. Now, I'm sure that some facsimile of the plot can be adapted without those characters. But the same is probably true of Robb or Renly or even Ned. Why not just cut out all the politics and have one season of fighting zombies?

No the concept of innocent until proven guilty should not apply here. You know why? Because the two guys running the show already know what happens. Also unless those things are important it costs a lot of time and money down to include them. Just those two things alone, specifically Aegon, could mean another whole season of the show and slowing down everybody else's plots to accommodate it.

It's also a false equivalency to equate Ned and Robb with Aegon and Arianne. They are the basis for the War of the 5 Kings. Ned is the closest thing the books have ever had to a number one main character. Robb was the cornerstone for the Stark side in that entire conflict. Even with Renly he had the benefit of being introduced before Martin bloated the narrative up so it was easier to put him in.

And after AFFC the entire Dorne plot pretty much pointed to Quentyn. That was where all that build up led in Doran's speech. And everyone who read that book would have that Quentyn was a major player. Then he died. Now we know Arianne might have a little more to do in WW but there is no guarantee that it will ever amount to much more than Quentyn.

Also worth noting we don't even know if Aegon or LSH are completely cut yet. I still suspect one of the two might get in there. But if it's Aegon it will be a largely abbreviated version of his story.

[protar]

No the concept of innocent until proven guilty should not apply here. You know why? Because the two guys running the show already know what happens. Also unless those things are important it costs a lot of time and money down to include them. Just those two things alone, specifically Aegon, could mean another whole season of the show and slowing down everybody else's plots to accommodate it.

It's also a false equivalency to equate Ned and Robb with Aegon and Arianne. They are the basis for the War of the 5 Kings. Ned is the closest thing the books have ever had to a number one main character. Robb was the cornerstone for the Stark side in that entire conflict. Even with Renly he had the benefit of being introduced before Martin bloated the narrative up so it was easier to put him in.

And after AFFC the entire Dorne plot pretty much pointed to Quentyn. That was where all that build up led in Doran's speech. And everyone who read that book would have that Quentyn was a major player. Then he died. Now we know Arianne might have a little more to do in WW but there is no guarantee that it will ever amount to much more than Quentyn.

Also worth noting we don't even know if Aegon or LSH are completely cut yet. I still suspect one of the two might get in there. But if it's Aegon it will be a largely abbreviated version of his story.

D+D clearly do not know what they are doing. Like that is a clearer fact to me than the sky being blue. They might know roughly where the ending is, but I they have no grasp of the plot, the themes or the characters. They want to cut straight to the end imo. To them, "we're going to tell the same story as the books", basically just means there'll be a fight against the Others, and the King/Queen at the end will be the same. Just because they cut something doesn't mean it's not important. If anything I think that they are now deliberately cutting important parts of the plot to get to the end faster and/or with as few new characters as possible. I have some theories about where exactly they'll be taking the story in TWOW.

We didn't read Dorne the same way. Quentyn was just some guy I hadn't met yet. I had no idea whether or not he'd be important. To me, the clear takeaway was that the Martell's were plotting vengeance against the Lannisters, and I was most invested in Doran and Arianne. Not off-page Quentyn. And even then - Quentyn was important. He frees the dragons, he is a vital part of Arianne's development and maybe his death is the key to turning Dorne off of Dany. Martin probably could have trimmed some of his chapters sure. But honestly I don't know why people act like Quentyn was such a huge betrayal. We only knew him for one book. It's not the same with Arianne - to have her die early into TWOW after we've known her for 10 years and have been lead to believe she is important would be a betrayal. And unlike a certain pair of showrunners I could name, Martin does not truly betray his audience in that way. His deaths are earned.

Also something to note is that Dorne (and the Ironborn) got their whole entire subplots to set them up before whatever role they play in TWOW. They got their own big corner of the novel. You don't just do that for ultimately unimportant characters. Quentyn on the otherhand was always intrinsically linked to Dany's story. He was a smaller part of someone else's story, not the protagonist of his own story like Arianne.

[Dragon in the North]

Still seemed pretty obvious to me that Cersei's downfall was made very obvious and heavyhanded. They made her arm the faith militant for really no reason, so it seemed like a very artificial and transparent way to set that up.

My complaint with Hardhome is not just that it had cliches. I liked Hardhome well enough. But Jon's story has a lot of problems this season, so for one episode to make up for it it has to be amazing. And Hardhome really wasn't if you actually look at it. It was fine. Nothing more. You can't compare it to Blackwater. Blackwater had some cliches but it topped off a great arc. So they're more forgiveable.

ETA: On Dany. She really just randomly decides to marry Hizdahr one day. It's not an illogical choice but there's no set up, she forces him to marry her. Dany's arc this season has just been jumping from one thing to the next with no context. And yes I'm sure Tyrion will be of more use when Dany gets to Westeros. So why speed up their meeting? It's just hollow fanservice. It's sad how many people fall for this stuff hook, line and sinker.

Cersei's downfall was a surprise to my Unsullied family is all I'm saying. And I already gave Cersei's reasoning for rearming the faith.

Jon's arc this season is similar to the books in that Jon is trying to "kill the boy and let the man be born." He's had to make tough choices that goes against the wishes of his brothers, including those closest to him, and he is finding out how lonely leading could be. Hardhome combined two plots from the books into one, and gave the viewers a glimpse of the real enemy, which we desperately needed.

I'm never been entirely invested in Tyrion and Dany's storyline in book or show, but I believe they made the right decision in having them meet. Having Tyrion travel all season long without reaching his destination would have made the travelogue seem like a waste of time. There's no telling what will transpire next episode or season 6, so Tyrion's presence may become very important. Regarding your last sentence, the only thing that's sad is your blatant attempt to get a rise out of me.

[protar]

Cersei's downfall was a surprise to my Unsullied family is all I'm saying. And I already gave Cersei's reasoning for rearming the faith.

Jon's arc this season is similar to the books in that Jon is trying to "kill the boy and let the man be born." He's had to make tough choices that goes against the wishes of his brothers, including those closest to him, and he is finding out how lonely leading could be. Hardhome combined two plots from the books into one, and gave the viewers a glimpse of the real enemy, which we desperately needed.

I'm never been entirely invested in Tyrion and Dany's storyline in book or show, but I believe they made the right decision in having them meet. Having Tyrion travel all season long without reaching his destination would have made the travelogue seem like a waste of time. There's no telling what will transpire next episode or season 6, so Tyrion's presence may become very important. And I'm going to ignore that last sentence. The only thing that's sad is your blatant attempt to get a rise out of me.

I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. It wasn't even directed specifically at you. I'm just saying it really disappoints me how many people are completely satisfied just by Peter Dinklage being witty. Surely the coolness of the two of them meeting is made redundant if Tyrion doesn't actually have anything to do during that meeting? This is the "creatively it made sense to us" problem. They wanted two of the show's most popular characters to meet, but they were so eager to do so that they rushed it and there was no weight. And that's like the whole season in a nutshell - dozens of plot holes, offensive writing, inconsistent characterisation, barely any plot progression for the first 2/3rds of the season. And then we get two episodes of dragons and zombies and the show is the best thing ever again. I'm someone who wants to believe that audiences are not complete idiots and if you treat them with respect and assume that they're intelligent then they'll rise to the challenge. So no Dragon in the North I am not trying to get a rise out of you. I genuinely find it pretty sad when this show and it's audience proves me wrong in that.

[EatCrow]

The things that bother me about the show are the inconsistencies.

"There are only two neclaces like this..one mine and Myrcella's" Joffrey gave one to Sansa.

Maggie the frog "16 (for him and 3 for you) Robert and Cersei had a child together regardless if he died shortly after birth.

Arya's kill list. Why add Thoros and Melisandre? She doesn't say their names the last time. And she also omitted Illyn Pain. Yes the actor was ill but he isnt really Illyn Pain.

Littlefinger says Stannis is great commander and battle tested yet 20 men can undo him. Huh? And how do they know it was 20?

Then there's Loras. In case you forgot how gay he is let me show you again.

It should make sense within itself.

[IRON BANK]

This would be an effective critique if the show actually included story-lines from the books you mention. In reality, most of the crappy stuff in this season wasn't from any of the books. Plot points this season were almost all invented by D&D (e.g., Jaime in Dorne, Sansa in Winterfell, Brienne staring pensively at Winterfell, etc...)

So true this season seemed contrived. I hope it strays somewhat from the books so i am surprised when it finally comes out.

[Davos is King]

As to Hardhome, I'm just pointing out that there's a lot wrong with Jon's arc this season so saying you liked it better in the show because of Hardhome kind of does mean you're an action junkie. At least in this specific scenario. The pacing is all off in Jon's story - because they wanted to make the battle at the Wall the episode 9 moment last season they had to rush through his election (and Sam's growing political skill). And they're trying to represent the centuries of grievances the Night's Watch has against the Wildlings with Olly - who has only just joined the Watch. Then there's Hardhome itself: Loads of action cliches, sexism, illogic (like why Jon is even here, he hurts negotiations far more than helps them).

Yeah they could have just emphasized the problems within the Night's Watch by having Stannis make some comments about how it's been "nine days too long" if I remember the correct quote :P Then Sam could have talked to Denys Mallister and we'd have a better sequence. Although the problem there can perhaps be attributed to JJ Murphy's untimely death and therefore the need to restructure. Jon is at Hardhome because Tormund wants to know that the Night's Watch will keep their word or something like that. I'd say Stannis' got worse treatment. Besides the obvious character butchering things like why the fuck are Shireen and Selyse marching to war bother me.. or why Stannis is even trying to take the North in the first place..it seems the other houses have gone. Could you explain the supposed "sexism" in Hardhome? Despite it being a departure I thought it was very well done and enjoyed and it is without a doubt the highlight of the season and Karsi was a very good character. She did get that boat cliche though :P

[EatCrow]

I'm seriously laughing so hard right now.

You're right. I don't believe that people can seriously find these people compelling when their characterizations change with the wind. When the context is so full of inconsistencies and leaps of logic that it's practically incomprehensible.

But then again I don't see why people like country music :dunno:

Thank you!

[EatCrow]

Rape acts in Game of Thrones the TV series (to date): 50

Rape victims in Game of Thrones (to date): 29

Rape acts in ASOIAF the book series (to date): 214

Rape victims in ASOIAF (to date): 117

The books contain over 4 times as much rape as the show, so check your facts before you spout nonsense.

Now you contradict yourself by saying rape is in the books as an argument as to why there is so much rape on the show. Dont you think that with the time constraints of the show these scenes could have just been omitted and the time spent on more important scenes. We don't need a rape in every episode, it does nothing to furthur the story so your argument that it's in the books is invalid.

[Lord Freypie]

Someone should make an analysis of "events other than rapes" in the books arcs the show adapted and see if the show has respected the same ratio of displaying about 1/4. I'd suspect they have cut far more "people remembering their past", "people hearing about prophecies or dreaming", "Mormont's bird saying 'grain'", and "people eating food described in length" events than "rapes".

Someone should also make a difference between events actually described in more than 3 lines, and events just mentionned (which would reduce the number of book rapes by one or two hundred I think).

Finally compare the % of lines/pages in the book describing rapes, and the % of minutes in the show, and I'm sure the ratio is a bit different.

(or rather don't, and just recognize those numbers mean nothing)