Stannis the character was ruined for me

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

A good narrative isn't always about rushing from one plot point to the next as quickly as possible. In fact it seldom is. Much of Feast and Dance are plodding but Tyrion's arc really cannot be described as that. Every chapter has major plot progression as I recall. Cutting the Aegon plot line is not trimming the fat. Something like Tyrion's time as a slave to Yezzan zo Quagaz - that is fat. If they'd skipped straight from that to joining sellswords that would be trimming the fat. Cutting out a game changing plot line is trimming the meat. That's basically D+D's adaptational process. They trim the meat and leave the fat. 

Honestly - and this is an aside - I think D+D should have just handed over the mantle after season 3. And I don't say that only because the quality of writing dropped. I say that because it's very clear that their passion lies with the first three books, specifically everything prior to the Red Wedding. They outright said that reaching that was their goal. They just clearly didn't care for the last two books and we can see that they're trying to wrap things up ASAP while HBO would happily go 10 seasons. 

I agree they recognised the weaknesses of the last two books and tried to address them. Hence why there are so many changes. That doesn't show a lack of passion, but an understanding of making tv

[Eddard Scissorhands]

Nobody is addressing the REAL reason the show needed to be compressed as seasons went on: The White Walkers can't just keep on walking aimlessly, they need to arrive already for the TV audience, otherwise the (relatively) quick resolution is going to be very anticlimatic.

That being said, compressing is not necessarily rushing, and specially Stannis' arc was handled poorly. :/

ETA: Meaning books 4+5 have a considerably slower pace, but that's not necessarily a huge problem on itself for the show. (Beside the child actors aging)

But The Walkers and Dany (to a lesser extent) can't slow their pace even more to a grinding halt in order to match the timing of other stretched out arcs.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Erm, no? Of course not. I wouldn't even compare the best of Martin with the worst of Kubrick. I'm talking about adapting literature.

The thing is, it all comes down to comparing. Kubrick was a great director, and I happen to appreciate his movies. When he changed (And he did so, quite a lot), he knew the level of talent he had to tell the story. He made changes that made sense.

I'm sorry, I'm not against change in the slightest, I'm against lack of talent. Sansa could have went to Winterfell and the storyline   could have been brilliant. But that wasn't the case. Likewise, Stannis' book-story had quite a bit that could have been adapted or even invented that could work. Again, that wasn't the case. You could say the same about Dorne. 

There's also the point of what you're adapting. Every adaptation of a popular story knows some bits are untouchable. You can't save Romeo and Juliet, for instance.

But It all comes down to talent. 

[Dolorous Gabe]

There is consistency and there is simply acting in the same way the entire time, which seems to be what is expected. Isolating one scene and screaming because its inconsistent shows a lack of understanding of human beings and makes you come across as a robot.

Yes this season has had more changes than any other season. What is the reason for that? It wasn't just for a laugh you know. Rather due to the slow moving, uneventful and plodding nature of the source material.

Ugh!

[Dolorous Gabe]

But Season 5 was also incredibly slow moving, plodding and uneventful. Nothing of note happens until episode 6. So it's ridiculous to claim that all the changes in S5 where necessary when they changed none of the flaws of Feast and Dance and removed all the good stuff. In trying to trim the fat D+D trimmed the meat. Slow as the last two books where they were stuffed with great themes and character development. 

Just quoting this because it is on the money and should be read again.

[Eddard Scissorhands]

Just quoting this because it is on the money and should be read again.

This is I agree with.

[John Doe]

The Ds called Tywin "lawful neutral." This is the guy who ordered that same 7-foot rapist murderer to, well, rape and murder the crown prince's wife and children during Robert's Rebellion. The same guy who destroyed a couple of entire families and is lionized (Heh.) in song for it. The same guy who plotted with people who freaking FLAY PEOPLE ALIVE to kill another family at dinner. The same guy who ordered the gang-rape of his son's wife, then was caught nailing that son's whore girlfriend. The same guy who was willing to see that son executed because he didn't measure up to what Tywin thought a son should be (all the while, willfully oblivious to his golden son's continued and fruitful sexual relationship with his twin sister). Lawful neutral. Yeah, that's just what comes to mind when I think of Tywin. 

 

The RW was for ending the war and the Ellaria thing has to be proven. Tyrion was to be sent to the NW. The Shae thing was probably Varys.

But if we had to use an alignment system he'd probably not be considered lawful neutral to say the least.

[Le Cygne]

Tywin damn well knew what he was sending into Elia's chambers with orders to dispatch them all, and while he's a prideful old fart, he's also quite vengeful (witness how he treated his father's mistress after Tytos died). 

Also Tywin set the Brave Companions and the Mountain's men to terrorize the commoners.

[John Doe]

The northeners harassed the commoners too.

 

Just to put some critizisms into perspective, not to argue the others.

[Le Cygne]

Not even going to go there...

[John Doe]

Do as you like, facts are facts. 

[JLE]

Yeah.

If Shireen burns in the books, it won't be Stannis who gives the order. He's too far away from her.

And nobody else, except Melisandre, could give such an order, and Melisandre would not be obeyed if she gave it while Stannis was not there in person.

In any case, I think Book-Stannis, if Melisandre was going to try and burn Shireen, would kill Melisandre to save his daughter, even if he believed that doing so would destroy the world: either because his iron self-control "for the greater good" finally snaps - "He'll break before he bends" (Donal Noye) - or by deciding that a world which requires a father to sacrifice his daughter, especially in such a terrible way as burning, is not a world worth saving.

"I will have no more burnings. Pray harder"

In any case, if Stannis is to get *involved* in Shireen's fate at all (and I think that at some point the narrative of the story may require him to), this requires him now to actually win the battle against the Boltons and either return to the Wall, or have her somehow join him at Winterfell.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Stannis's death killed Jon snow for me, I didn't like Aragon but I hate the amount of plot bending Jon snow gets. Stannis in the books will at least fight daenerys. Stannis in the tv show might as well have been written out. He did two things he inadvertently saved a moron who gets stabbed later for being a moron, and he gave Tyrone his military chops which he will magically forget next season. Yay for Stannis.https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ZfYBsuBzulE I should have watched game of thrones through a comedy lense it would have made more sense.

[Eddard Scissorhands]

Yeah.

If Shireen burns in the books, it won't be Stannis who gives the order. He's too far away from her.

And nobody else, except Melisandre, could give such an order, and Melisandre would not be obeyed if she gave it while Stannis was not there in person.

In any case, I think Book-Stannis, if Melisandre was going to try and burn Shireen, would kill Melisandre to save his daughter, even if he believed that doing so would destroy the world: either because his iron self-control "for the greater good" finally snaps - "He'll break before he bends" (Donal Noye) - or by deciding that a world which requires a father to sacrifice his daughter, especially in such a terrible way as burning, is not a world worth saving.

"I will have no more burnings. Pray harder"

I suspect that's GRRM bait right there.

My opinion:

He's being rigid now but he will 'break' when desperation reaches a saturation point. I consider having your daughter burned with all the consequences 'breaking' rather than 'bending'.

Bending would be compromising, settling for something less than what he considers rightfully his. Like defeat. Or abandoning his mission.

And if the show is an indication, he will push on until there's only one option left to accept if not victory, death. Completely broken.

Again, this even though I disliked the way the show set up and paced his exit, for all reasons and purposes, putting him on a character disposing death conveyer belt, like for example Barristan.

[protar]

I agree they recognised the weaknesses of the last two books and tried to address them. Hence why there are so many changes. That doesn't show a lack of passion, but an understanding of making tv

I'm not seeing where we're in agreement. Yes the last two books are flawed, but not nearly so much as people claim. I still maintain that the mere act of combining the chronology of those last two books into one season should have remedied most of the problems. Instead D+D made things worse. The flaws of S5 have nothing to do with the flaws of the books.

I've yet to see any rational argument for how any of the changes in S5 were supposed to improve the source material. You keep saying that but you can never pinpoint anything. 

[SeanF]

I thoroughly enjoyed AFFC, and ADWD, and think there is plenty of good source material there, that was inexplicably left out:-

1. Why concentrate on three Sand Snakes, rather than Arianne?

2. Why exclude the Kingsmoot and the assault on the Reach?

3. Why are the repercussions of the Red Wedding in the Riverlands excluded?

4. Why exclude Lord Manderly and his plotting on behalf of the Starks?

5. Why give so much time to Ramsay Bolton?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I'm not seeing where we're in agreement. Yes the last two books are flawed, but not nearly so much as people claim. I still maintain that the mere act of combining the chronology of those last two books into one season should have remedied most of the problems. Instead D+D made things worse. The flaws of S5 have nothing to do with the flaws of the books.

I've yet to see any rational argument for how any of the changes in S5 were supposed to improve the source material. You keep saying that but you can never pinpoint anything. 

If you don't think the books are all that flawed and uncinematic then there is now way we can agree on it. Personally it seems obvious to me that chronologically those books are incredibly slow and any first half of a season based on them would also be slow as a result. If you happen to not agree with that then I guess we have to just leave it there.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I thoroughly enjoyed AFFC, and ADWD, and think there is plenty of good source material there, that was inexplicably left out:-

1. Why concentrate on three Sand Snakes, rather than Arianne?

2. Why exclude the Kingsmoot and the assault on the Reach?

3. Why are the repercussions of the Red Wedding in the Riverlands excluded?

4. Why exclude Lord Manderly and his plotting on behalf of the Starks?

5. Why give so much time to Ramsay Bolton?

1) Thats unclear since the Sand Snakes were so shit. Possibly its because they will have a greater role next season, possibly its because the F/Aegon story has been cut so Arianne is less relevant, and possibly because they wanted to tie it in closer to Oberyn, so having a character from season 4 as a bridge to Dorne.

2) Kings moot will probably be season 6.

3) Riverlands will be season 6. Its likely that doing it all earlier would leave them with a problem of tieing it into other storylines, so was moved.

4) Its a shame the fat lord isn't in it, but its possible a version of his character will appear next season too, since there is more focus on Northern Lords.

5) Even if you don't like Ramsey, I don't, its understandable they needed an antagonist in that story. Ramsey appears more on the show than in the books, but hes still central to a number of plots as a way of understanding who people are fighting.  

[protar]

If you don't think the books are all that flawed and uncinematic then there is now way we can agree on it. Personally it seems obvious to me that chronologically those books are incredibly slow and any first half of a season based on them would also be slow as a result. If you happen to not agree with that then I guess we have to just leave it there.

I agree that the last two books where flawed. They were slow and somewhat bloated. Not to the degree that some people say, but yes they were flawed and the show could have improved upon that. But that's where our agreement ends.

I do not agree that the last two books are uncinematic. Not when they are put together. The Bridge of Dream and the reveal of Aegon would naturally fall on episode three or four and from then on there are enough big events for every episode. That's a big, exciting reveal very early on in the season. You claim that Season 5 was slow because it had to stick to the books. I claim the opposite - it was slow because they cut out events from the books that would have provided excitement in the early season. Just because you personally didn't like Aegon, it doesn't mean that no one did. Look at it objectively - unveiling a new claimant to the throne in the early season, and involving his plot line with two fan favourites (Tyrion and Dany) is exactly what Season 5 needed in the early season. 

Nor do I agree that any of the changes did anything to remedy the flaws of the last two books. S5 was the slowest season to date. Nothing of note happened until episode 6 and that was such a controversy (not to mention just plain unentertaining - no one liked the Sand Snakes) that it was 7 episodes in before we actually got anything interesting. You're still dodging my question - how did the changes improve anything from the books?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Our differences of opinion are on the solutions. I personally don't think the reveal of an extra king is the sort of thing thats going to make people jump out of their chairs. In fact I doubt many people will care. Your average audience member is interested in the characters and personal journeys, and actually I doubt most members of the audience really understand very much about Targs or hiereditary rules etc, nor do they much care. 

Introducing some kid on a boat who says he's the rightful king is a completely meh moment, certainly not something that is going to keep people coming back when they've been halfway through a season with little event or action.

You might find that sort of things deeply interesting, but I would suggest as an intense book reader you and most members of this board are quite the exception, which is why most of the arguments here happen.

I also highly doubt the bridge of dreams could happen by episode 3 or 4, unless you massively rushed everything, and cut out many other stories. There are other effects of Tyrions journey changes at this stage, concentrating on Jorahs relationship with Dany, and possibly it being him introducing the bloody flux (Greyscale) into Meereen. 

So if that is your solution to fixing the problems of lack of event of the book then I think you are wrong. What else happens in the first half of those books which would lead to a far more exiting season? What else could you put in there that was removed that would make things better? Sam being sick on a boat? Brienne meeting randoms and wandering around aimlessly? A Kingsmoot? Nothing good there.