What the show got better than the books

[HairGrowsBack]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Is that what I said? I said they were forced to make changes. 

Well yes, you say they have to make changes (because Martin is such a bad writer ?), so I ask you how is poor characterization of pretty much everyone a necessary change. Why did they have no choice but make Jaime a doormat, Cersei a poor victim, Tyrion a saint, Sansa an idiot , etc.. ?

[MrsStocksey]

26 minutes ago, Ruhail said:

I dont see how bad pussy, 20 good men or cock merchant are changes that needed to happen.

Bad pussy - terrible line should never have made it onto the show - no defence

cock merchant - 10/20 second joke, showed Tyrion talking his way out of a situation, having already made reference to dwarfs being lucky it made sense and it was made the scene a bit more light-hearted.  Not sure why it's so hated, really not a big deal to focus on.

20 good men - I've never seen the problem with this, just rewatched the episode last night and it makes sense, quite clear that they snuck around the edge of the camp and lit the fires.  A quick way to destroy the army supplies/horses etc and very effective given the sorry state of Stannis' starving and freezing men.  It makes sense in the show because of the scenes that led up to it and followed it but if you try to fit it into book logic you'll fail because by this point they are telling 2 different stories. 

[Wendel Shoemaker]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

In your opinion. Cock merchant was fine, there was plenty of dwarf cock jokes in the book and I actually thought the seen was a lot of fun. Bad pussy was awful, most of Dorne was really bad, but that doesn't take away from the vast majority of the show which was still very good, and has continued to be since the first season. If you think that is the worst thing you've seen I urge you to watch more tv.

Nor does it take away from the reasons WHY the show had to make so many changes, which can all be pointed back to Martin and his writing.

You seem to be coming from the point of view that everyone accepts Feast and Dance as a drag, as if Martin was the problem. There were a lot of changes they needed to make to adapt the books to the screen, but for me that's not good enough to look past the awful choices they made and to appreciate them just for trying. There's not much of an arguement here to get into because I can't change how you felt about the season, but personally i thought it was a poor attempt at adapting the books and a poor attempt at straying from the books. I also felt it was an odd choice to skip most of what made those books interesting as well.

I'm hopeful for season 6, maybe with less structure from the books they can write a more coherant story on their own?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

Well yes, you say they have to make changes (because Martin is such a bad writer ?), so I ask you how is poor characterization of pretty much everyone a necessary change. Why did they have no choice but make Jaime a doormat, Cersei a poor victim, Tyrion a saint, Sansa an idiot , etc.. ?

Thats not the question though is it. The point was whether D&D were forced to make changes to the book material. Its hard to argue that they didn't have to. Could they have left Sansa sitting on her ass for a season, could they have left Jamie sitting around for a season, or somehow crowbarred Riverlands into this season, should have left Brienne wandering the countryside meeting random Riverlanders, should have included all of Jon's many trials and tribulations, should they have shown the numerous meetings and slow paced discussions Dany has. 

Essentially D&D were asked to adapt 2 novels which are bulky, slow, lack any sort of momentum, have serious pacing issues and not major events occuring until the very end. Basically an almost impossible task. 

Your statements (which I disagree with)  have literally nothing to do with my point, so I've no idea why you are bringing them up here.

[MrsStocksey]

6 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

Well yes, you say they have to make changes (because Martin is such a bad writer ?), so I ask you how is poor characterization of pretty much everyone a necessary change. Why did they have no choice but make Jaime a doormat, Cersei a poor victim, Tyrion a saint, Sansa an idiot , etc.. ?

Surely the point is not that he is a bad writer, I don't think anyone has said that, but that his books, if directly translated to TV wouldn't work.  The books themselves are great but they're not perfect and the show is great but not perfect!

I really don't like show Jamie in season 5, I'm hoping for redemption this season for his character, he annoyed me as I want more from the character!

But Cersei is anything but a poor victim, she's a vile bitch in the show most of the time, redeemed only by the love she has for her children.  However, I think only people with hearts of stone wouldn't have felt for her during the walk of shame, or the look of terror in her eyes as Joffery died in her arms, or the moment she almost gave Tommen the poison.  This doesn't make her a 'poor victim' but a rounded character, moments of empathy with a character are important...even if most of the time it's great to hate her.

[StepStark]

6 hours ago, Wilnova said:

When you post this quote from the books:

And then below that you state and I quote

It makes your argument null and void. There's no point in reading your huge block of text after that.

This was what it was like for Dany:

She has freaking open sores on her bottom and you are saying Drogo is unaware of the agony he is putting her through? And this is considered to be romantic?? Ugh.

She was a 13 yr old forced into a marriage with an adult. She had no choice but to adapt to the rape or suffer. How many here would consider it romantic if Tyrion had forced himself on Sansa because he is unaware of her disgust and she adapts to it by hiding her disgust? Would that be romantic? Tyrion gets shit from Sansa fans even though he never engages in marital rape. But apparently with Dany it's all A-OK and romantic. Even though she was also sold and forced into the marriage and even worse, raped. Why? Because Drogo is hot? 

By all modern standards, Dany was raped. She was a terrified, 13 yr old who had no choice on her wedding night. The show depicting it as rape was one of the best things they have done.

So you admit that you are in these threads only for trolling and antagonizing posters, instead of making cogent arguments?

How the hell did you include Tyrion in all this? What he has to do with it? If you have something to discuss with Sansa fans you mention, discuss it with them, and not with me. For the record, I think Tyrion acted very brave and noble when he refused to have sex with Sansa, even if he didn't have to and nobody would accuse him of rape if he had sex with her. But it also has to be said that Sansa also has a right not to be married to a man she isn't attracted to in any way. So Tyrion shouldn't be married to her in the first place. So that means Tyrion-Sansa situation is also very complicated, and it's wrong to strictly apply modern standards on any of them.

And that is the only similarity with Drogo-Dany situation. Drogo did not rape her. The excerpt I quoted is very clear on that. And by the way, nobody considers that romantic. Dany least of all. So I don't know what your argument is. It surely looks like a strawman if you ask me, because you seem to be arguing with Sansa fans at one point, and then arguing with some "Drogo is morally perfect" followers (if they exist at all), and then applying modern standards at another point. None of that have anything to do with my post. If you want to see rape where none is written, it is on you. But for the record, in years before the show, I don't remember anyone saying Dany was raped by Drogo in the books. That crazy idea came only with the show, and with show lovers trying to justify D&D's incompetence. and they really are incompetent, because they changed the wedding night in the show just because Momoa and Emilia suggested it. It shows that they had a very poor understanding of the characters from the beginning.

They depicted it as rape, which of course creates a lot of problems then. Because, Dany's entire season one story is now about falling in love with your rapist. Opposite to that, in the books she was not raped. She just suffered the same fate countless other young women and men in that world also suffer. She was forced by her brother into a marriage she didn't want, but he expected some benefit from it. Dany was just lucky that her new husband is not a psychopath, but someone who is open to changes and new experiences. But Drogo is also a Dothraki khal, so of course that he also does a lot of things the Dothraki way, both the bad ones and the good ones. Just because on their wedding night he was much better than everyone expected, it doesn't mean that Drogo is not a Dothraki who consummates the marriage as he does at the beginning. What is so hard to understand about that?

[HairGrowsBack]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats not the question though is it. The point was whether D&D were forced to make changes to the book material. Its hard to argue that they didn't have to. Could they have left Sansa sitting on her ass for a season, could they have left Jamie sitting around for a season, or somehow crowbarred Riverlands into this season, should have left Brienne wandering the countryside meeting random Riverlanders, should have included all of Jon's many trials and tribulations, should they have shown the numerous meetings and slow paced discussions Dany has. 

Essentially D&D were asked to adapt 2 novels which are bulky, slow, lack any sort of momentum, have serious pacing issues and not major events occuring until the very end. Basically an almost impossible task. 

Your statements (which I disagree with)  have literally nothing to do with my point, so I've no idea why you are bringing them up here.

Characterization IS part of the book material, I dare say it is at the core of the books, so it's fairly on topic I'd say. And I took this because it is the most blatant example , but even plot changes don't make sense for the most part.

They are a lot of shows that mainly consist in people "sitting on their arses" as you say; and people love them, because they love seeing characters grow, relationship be formed, complex themes being explored. They could have done anything with Sansa, add a little more action at the Vale if they needed to, instead they bent the plot over to have her be Ramsay's sex slave. So yes, they could have stick to the books, everyone would have been happier for it.

Just as they could have shown Jaime actually having a brain, falling out with Cersei, dealing with his identity crisis, doing some political work, etc... Larry Sitcom dad was not better by any stretch of imagination.

And finally Brienne's chapters do have action in each, including one of the most raw and cinematic fight scene in the series, another search for identity, the consequences of war, a fascinating atmosphere,... I just cannot wrap my brain around how you and other people find her staring at a bloody candle for an entire season better than this. At this point I just can't believe you're being serious.

[Cas Stark]

35 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats not the question though is it. The point was whether D&D were forced to make changes to the book material. Its hard to argue that they didn't have to. Could they have left Sansa sitting on her ass for a season, could they have left Jamie sitting around for a season, or somehow crowbarred Riverlands into this season, should have left Brienne wandering the countryside meeting random Riverlanders, should have included all of Jon's many trials and tribulations, should they have shown the numerous meetings and slow paced discussions Dany has. 

Essentially D&D were asked to adapt 2 novels which are bulky, slow, lack any sort of momentum, have serious pacing issues and not major events occuring until the very end. Basically an almost impossible task. 

Your statements (which I disagree with)  have literally nothing to do with my point, so I've no idea why you are bringing them up here.

But they are doing the riverlands this season, LOL.

 

[Woman of War]

StepStark, you might have realized that people here simply do not agree with your opinion that Dany's rape was no rape. And yes, some might call your position rape apology (or would if Sansa had been in the same situation). You should simply accept this and carry your position elsewhere, this is not the thread for it. But if you wish to troll until there is a excuse to close this thread...let's not get provoked by haters who can't find their way back home.

I guess if the show had been so insane to present Dany's forced wedding night and the days after that as consensual romance  there would have been a media storm, compared to that the divisive opinions about Sansa's wedding night were nothing. I am very happy the show avoided that misstep though I can see reasons - call it excuses - why Martin has not been as aware of the problem back then.

 

Oh, and I forgot:

 I loved the Brienne/Sandor fight, it was epic. Two extremely dedicated actors, great choreography (ahem, as opposed to the fight in the Water Gardens) and the outcome I preferred - well,  we knew this had to be the necessary outcome actually. While I really like the fictional character of Sandor  - there is maybe more to him than "all the chickens in the room deal" which was sooo wonderful - I realized here that I like the character of Brienne a little bit more. I guess we will see more scenes  in books and show  where two beloved characters clash and one succeeds or at least intends to kill the other. This will be painful and yet great, not villains vs good guys or girls for the lazy thinkers but emotional challenge.

[Lautrec]

There are too many things to count as to what the show got better, ranging from major stuff like improving the pacing of the last two books and ageing up the characters, to minor, like the fact that Daario doesn't look like a clown. That's one thing that I think gets forgotten often; the fact that the books are at time incredibly campy and silly. Nothing wrong with that really, but a lot of it would be downright awful on-screen. Especially the Essos stuff.

Some of the stuff I appreciate the most is that Benioff and Weiss understand that they're there to adapt and not transcribe. That way a lot of the fat gets removed (unfortunately sometimes it gets close to the meat as well). 

Another major thing the show has over the books is that, simply by being portrayed by great actors (fantastic casting), the secondary characters really shine. A lot of them in the books are very one-note and one-dimensional.

[Le Cygne]

16 hours ago, StepStark said:

But that's the thing, he doesn't change after the wedding night. And it's not about Dany not being a virgin any more. If you read the chapter in question, I'm sure you'll see that he's not forcing Dany. He's not even aware how hurt she is because of their intercourses. That doesn't make him a gentleman, but it also doesn't make him a rapist either. That's just him being his usual Dothraki. And anyway, Drogo's entire storyline is about him being undecided what does he want to be, does he want to stay a Dothraki or to become something else. So the beginning of his relationship with Dany fits perfectly into that. In my opinion, it would be unrealistic if he was gentle and watchful toward Dany all the time. He is a Dothraki after all. But he never hurts her intentionally. And, since I read the books long before the show, I don't remember anyone interpreting their wedding night as rape before the show. And I also don't remember anyone having any problem with Dany's next chapter and her agony. It really isn't about Drogo, but about Dany and how she adjusts to Dothraki way of life, and how she changes it when needed.

Agreed.

14 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree. She tries very hard to adapt; by trying to become a rider despite the pain and saddlesores she gets at first because she's not used to riding. Pain, bruises, and saddlesores that make intercourse a particularly unpleasant and painful experience, especially from behind, Dothraki style. She tries to adapt also by hiding her pain and tears from Drogo who, as you say, is not a knight but never rapes her. And she succeeds, and there's real love between the two, something Dany still remembers fondly.

Agreed. 

I would not say better than books, but other than the wedding night change, which I thought was written very well in the books, and set up the rest of the romance, I enjoyed seeing their story on the show.

[Meera of Tarth]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats not the question though is it. The point was whether D&D were forced to make changes to the book material. Its hard to argue that they didn't have to. Could they have left Sansa sitting on her ass for a season, could they have left Jamie sitting around for a season, or somehow crowbarred Riverlands into this season, should have left Brienne wandering the countryside meeting random Riverlanders, should have included all of Jon's many trials and tribulations, should they have shown the numerous meetings and slow paced discussions Dany has. 

Essentially D&D were asked to adapt 2 novels which are bulky, slow, lack any sort of momentum, have serious pacing issues and not major events occuring until the very end. Basically an almost impossible task. 

Your statements (which I disagree with)  have literally nothing to do with my point, so I've no idea why you are bringing them up here.

About Brienne: Brienne's storyline in the book is far more interesting than her " candle story" in S5. And they could have improved the boring details. Arya and The Hound were also one season in The Riverlands.

Jon: Overall, well-adapted. But his interactions with Mel could have been much better different. They were similar to the bad pussy and the cock merchant.

 

1 hour ago, HairGrowsBack said:

 

And finally Brienne's chapters do have action in each, including one of the most raw and cinematic fight scene in the series, another search for identity, the consequences of war, a fascinating atmosphere,..

Oh I've read this just now. This is what I'm referring to about Brienne's Chapters.

So it's like, I can understand them avoiding Sansa on The Vale (although I don't like the replacement for that story) but Brienne's S5 is like what would have done Sansa on the Vale in the show: nothing.

[Woman of War]

I love it when a show relies on great and well known actors like House of Cards does. And there are shows who succeed in presenting  incredible but so far not well known actors like Vikings or Outlander do. 

But GOT has the best of both. 

Even a minor role like young Cersei has been casted on the spot. Williams and Turner already got so much justified praise but Kerry Ingram - breathtaking.

[StepStark]

44 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

StepStark, you might have realized that people here simply do not agree with your opinion that Dany's rape was no rape. And yes, some might call your position rape apology (or would if Sansa had been in the same situation). You should simply accept this and carry your position elsewhere, this is not the thread for it. But if you wish to troll until there is a excuse to close this thread...let's not get provoked by haters who can't find their way back home.

I guess if the show had been so insane to present Dany's forced wedding night and the days after that as consensual romance  there would have been a media storm, compared to that the divisive opinions about Sansa's wedding night were nothing. I am very happy the show avoided that misstep though I can see reasons - call it excuses - why Martin has not been as aware of the problem back then.

Are you for real??? Please, explain to me how is this even possible:

This is website dedicated to Martin's books, and to the TV show based on Martin's books. Some posters like yourself accuse Martin of depicting rape in a very problematic manner. Then I reply by saying that Martin actually didn't depict rape in that particular situation. And then you accuse me of trolling and warn me that my posts are going to cause the closing of this thread.

Really, how is that even possible? What logic on Earth can lead to that conclusion? Why would a website dedicated to Martin's work close any thread because of me who effectively am defending Martin from you who accuse him of (possibly unintentional) rape apologia???

Can you show apologists rely on anything that isn't an illusion?

FYI, it's D&D who are rape apologists here. Their Dany falls in love with her rapist. Martin's Dany doesn't because Martin's Dany isn't raped. There are quite a few characters in ASOIAF that are raped, but not a single one falls in love with her rapist. That's because Martin doesn't write trite, tiring stories about people falling for their tormentors. But D&D clearly do. Sorry if you can't realize that because of your fascination with the show, but it is what it is.

And please stop telling me to go away from this thread. I won't. Certainly not just because you're telling me that. If you want to post on a website I can't have access to, start your own. Believe me, you won't see me there. But this is not your website. There are rules for posting on this website, and I didn't break a single one. Again, I'm the one who's replying to your insane accusations about the author of the books. I'm not telling you to go away or shut up, I'm just replying to you with some sense and logic. Just like other posters also do. I'm definitely not alone in interpreting Dany and Drogo this way. If that's more than you can handle, then perhaps you should reconsider your own involvement in internet discussions.

But it's on you. I'm not gonna tell you what are you gonna do. Just please don't you do that to me either. If you have something smart to reply, then do it. Just don't act as some moral authority because you definitely aren't.

And if you want to be reasonable, why don't you answer my earlier question to you, about Ned and Cat? Instead of sending me passive-aggressive "advice", better try to address logical flaws that were recognized in your own posts.

[sj4iy]

19 hours ago, Humble AK said:

Mostly what I remember from Jon's chapters were long interludes where he was counting supplies and wringing his hands over getting the Wildlings through. It wasn't exactly boring, but there were lots of things that bothered me. I absolutely detested how they handled Mance (the glamour). I did not like that he abandoned post over fake Arya. I can't remember specifics of his decisions because I don't want to re-read those chapters just to provide a convincing argument for my opinion (which you won't understand anyway, because you are so deadset on the opinion that the books are untouchable and the show has no value).

What I liked about the show Jon, and the North in general:
 

-Hardhome was amazing.

-Mance was actually killed off, no stupid glamouring.

-I liked that Jon was more liberal about his vows and the vows of Sam.

-I liked how Jon interacted with Davos, Stannis and Mel.

-I loved the execution of Janos Slynt. It makes me smile how people were so upset that Jon didn't say "Edd, get me a block." I think "Olly, get me my sword" is a much better line.

-Speaking of which, I liked Jon the mentor and Olly.

-I liked how for the watch was done.

-I liked the stare off between Jon and Allister, and like the nature of Allister and Jon's interactions in general. People are hung up on the geography of the travel, but I find that to be an incredibly pedantic concern - on the level of people saying a show is ruined because someone used a flintlock musket rifle in 1750, and they were first used in 1768. I thought it was a really good cinematic moment.

I could go on, but will additionally add that whatever value you attribute to "themes" in the book, I likely don't care a fig for. I think themes are for eighth grade book reports, and so something being, in your opinion, "thematically significant" in a book is as persuasive to me as someone trying to convince me that evacuating one's bowels every morning has thematic significance.

I agree with all of the above.

[dbunting]

Can't there be a single topic that doesn't turn into bashing and getting personal? Can't people be allowed to have their own opinion without someone having to tell them they are wrong? Why can't I say LSH was not needed in the books and I am glad she hasn't been in the show, without someone else deciding I am wrong? People, this is entertainment. Books, television, not life altering things here.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 hours ago, HairGrowsBack said:

Characterization IS part of the book material, I dare say it is at the core of the books, so it's fairly on topic I'd say. And I took this because it is the most blatant example , but even plot changes don't make sense for the most part.

They are a lot of shows that mainly consist in people "sitting on their arses" as you say; and people love them, because they love seeing characters grow, relationship be formed, complex themes being explored. They could have done anything with Sansa, add a little more action at the Vale if they needed to, instead they bent the plot over to have her be Ramsay's sex slave. So yes, they could have stick to the books, everyone would have been happier for it.

Just as they could have shown Jaime actually having a brain, falling out with Cersei, dealing with his identity crisis, doing some political work, etc... Larry Sitcom dad was not better by any stretch of imagination.

And finally Brienne's chapters do have action in each, including one of the most raw and cinematic fight scene in the series, another search for identity, the consequences of war, a fascinating atmosphere,... I just cannot wrap my brain around how you and other people find her staring at a bloody candle for an entire season better than this. At this point I just can't believe you're being serious.

Game of Thrones has a limited number of seasons and episodes in which to cover the vast story GRRM has set up. Every single storyline has to work hard to contribute to pushing that story forwards, via their own plot and the plots surrounding it. Martin doesn't have that worry and his story meanders slowly along, often diverging off in different direction, almost aimlessly at times. Some might like that, personally I found it a little too slow, especially when combined the extreme lack of resolution to most of the plots.

Either way, its not an option for the show. 

You might say Brienne's chapters have action in them, but they don't have any action that remotely ties into any other plots, or have any effect on the main plot at all, until right at the end of her story. Her entire plot is a diversion, a mild short story set alongside the major players, but not really going anyway. Of course that couldn't be included. Also to say all Brienne did is watch a candle is hugely disingenuous. 

The same could be said for Sansa's storyline in particular, and many of the other plotlines that seem to be doing nothing but holding formation until GRRM can figure a way of getting Dany to Westeros.

And characterisation is good, of course, but not at the expense of plot, narrative and pacing. 
 

[dbunting]

In my opinion, the show does a better job with Sansa. In the books I felt like she was just there. In the show she seems more involved in what is happening.

[dsug]

23 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Are you for real??? Please, explain to me how is this even possible:

This is website dedicated to Martin's books, and to the TV show based on Martin's books. Some posters like yourself accuse Martin of depicting rape in a very problematic manner. Then I reply by saying that Martin actually didn't depict rape in that particular situation. And then you accuse me of trolling and warn me that my posts are going to cause the closing of this thread.

Really, how is that even possible? What logic on Earth can lead to that conclusion? Why would a website dedicated to Martin's work close any thread because of me who effectively am defending Martin from you who accuse him of (possibly unintentional) rape apologia???

Can you show apologists rely on anything that isn't an illusion?

FYI, it's D&D who are rape apologists here. Their Dany falls in love with her rapist. Martin's Dany doesn't because Martin's Dany isn't raped. There are quite a few characters in ASOIAF that are raped, but not a single one falls in love with her rapist. That's because Martin doesn't write trite, tiring stories about people falling for their tormentors. But D&D clearly do. Sorry if you can't realize that because of your fascination with the show, but it is what it is.

And please stop telling me to go away from this thread. I won't. Certainly not just because you're telling me that. If you want to post on a website I can't have access to, start your own. Believe me, you won't see me there. But this is not your website. There are rules for posting on this website, and I didn't break a single one. Again, I'm the one who's replying to your insane accusations about the author of the books. I'm not telling you to go away or shut up, I'm just replying to you with some sense and logic. Just like other posters also do. I'm definitely not alone in interpreting Dany and Drogo this way. If that's more than you can handle, then perhaps you should reconsider your own involvement in internet discussions.

But it's on you. I'm not gonna tell you what are you gonna do. Just please don't you do that to me either. If you have something smart to reply, then do it. Just don't act as some moral authority because you definitely aren't.

And if you want to be reasonable, why don't you answer my earlier question to you, about Ned and Cat? Instead of sending me passive-aggressive "advice", better try to address logical flaws that were recognized in your own posts.

I'd say if Daenerys would rather die than have sex with drogo, it's non consensual. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Come on guys, move the rape talk elsewhere, its like a weird virus that permeates this board.