"Fair Game: The critical universe around Game of Thrones".

[SerMixalot]

Tyrion's arc throughout Season 4 was his trial for Kingslaying and Kinslaying

Season 6:

Doran and Trystane killed by Kins

Roose killed by a Kin

Balon killed by a Kin

Euron bragging about killing a Kin and a King

Euron stating he wants to kill Kins

Yeppppp great writing there, lots of respect for what you are creating, consistency ALL AROUND

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, SerMixalot said:

Tyrion's arc throughout Season 4 was his trial for Kingslaying and Kinslaying

Season 6:

Doran and Trystane killed by Kins

Roose killed by a Kin

Balon killed by a Kin

Euron bragging about killing a Kin and a King

Euron stating he wants to kill Kins

Yeppppp great writing there, lots of respect for what you are creating, consistency ALL AROUND

 

 

I shouldn't really respond because I think you are just randomly pulling out things you didn't like, which is really a rant thread kinda thing.

But essentially, its hardly far fetched that each kingdom wouldn't have its own laws and traditions.What might be a strict law in one place might not be so essential somewhere else. You can easily imagine that somewhere like the Iron Islands where they have a violent brutal approach to life that violence could lead to changes in rule. The ironborn are interested in getting the best ruler and looking after their own self interest, if that means a kinslayer then oh well.

As for Ramsey, well the news isn't getting out that he killed his father, he said his enemies did it. That news won't get out unless its in the best interest of those hiding that secret want it to. And again its personal interest making that happen.

As for Dorne, again its personal interest and political change being the driving force here. 

All of those situations show that people are willing to overlook so called laws in order to make important changes and to get what they want. 

It should also be noted that this is the show universe, not the books, so the kinslaying laws could easily be different here. It all comes back to whether the show works within its own confines, not whether it conflicts with the books.

[TheKitttenGuard]

15 minutes ago, SerMixalot said:

GRRM: How many children did Scarlet O'Hara have?  It really doesn't matter whether she had 1 (movie) or 3 (book)

GoT: How many children did Cersei Lannister have?  Ummm it sort of matters-3 Prophecy makes sense, 4 prophecy makes no sense

When stuff like this happens you NEED to turn your brain off, which MEANS poorly written show

 

 

The child does not have an overall effect though in the end.  

It also does not need to "Turn off ones brain" if you can accept that Cersei does not in the end accept the child as hers.  

It may not be satisfactory from what is known as related to the books.  It is though reasonable to think Cersei did not see that child as hersoon.

You can in a way be right with the child and Cersei discount the prophecies based on the child but with she may start thinking of it now and it does not change many things in the end.

[SerMixalot]

8 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I shouldn't really respond because I think you are just randomly pulling out things you didn't like, which is really a rant thread kinda thing.

But essentially, its hardly far fetched that each kingdom wouldn't have its own laws and traditions.What might be a strict law in one place might not be so essential somewhere else. You can easily imagine that somewhere like the Iron Islands where they have a violent brutal approach to life that violence could lead to changes in rule. The ironborn are interested in getting the best ruler and looking after their own self interest, if that means a kinslayer then oh well.

As for Ramsey, well the news isn't getting out that he killed his father, he said his enemies did it. That news won't get out unless its in the best interest of those hiding that secret want it to. And again its personal interest making that happen.

As for Dorne, again its personal interest and political change being the driving force here. 

All of those situations show that people are willing to overlook so called laws in order to make important changes and to get what they want. 

It should also be noted that this is the show universe, not the books, so the kinslaying laws could easily be different here. It all comes back to whether the show works within its own confines, not whether it conflicts with the books.

Well the reason I posted it was as an example of the extreme lengths they go to write poorly.

You yourself have to go to extremes to make the character actions make sense, which of course they don't.  I shouldn't bother but I will probably expend some effort to show that Kingslaying and Kinslaying (within GoT) has been shown to be universally reviled but in the meantime:

Lets take Dorne as an example.  What has not been shown in the show is that Dorne can have female leaders.  It has been expressed repeatedly in GoT that only males can run kingdoms, lordships, etc.  Yet now 4 women run Dorne after kinslaying (that has been expressly stated in the show).  That is one issue with that act of kinslaying.

 

 

[SerMixalot]

ok it took around 30 seconds but this very season Jamie calls killing his cousin a sin

[SerMixalot]

oh and another: Ramsey killed Fat Walda and his nephew if full view of Winterfell, he killed a new mother and a new born by having dogs shred them.  How is this even remotely acceptable in any society, fictional or otherwise? and consistent with the North's hatred of Theon for "killing" Bran and Rickon

[SerMixalot]

oh another: LAST season half of Stannis' army abandons him because he burned his kin.

and FWIW I don't have a problem with kinslaying happening in the show and the killer being rewarded for it.  For example if Ramsey killed Roose and blamed others for it and became Warden of the North-Fine

The problem the show has is that it is now done publicly with support from many and no negative ramifications-that is illogical and not consistent with the story they have told

 

[Maid So Fair]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/05/game-of-thrones-only-cat-line-change

That's less offensive but just as silly? Unless you believ that repeating the same word several times constitutes a theme (which wouldn't surprise me given certain previous comment) Calling her Cat doesn't make  Catelyn any less Lysa's sister.

And dumbing thugs down at a thematic level is still dumbing down (people won't realise what our theme is unless a character says so?).

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Just to point out a bit how's the point of the critics:

How Game of Thrones the Show Is Telling a Better Story than the Books:

But as much as I admire George R.R. Martin’s saga, turns of phrase, and dramatic highs, as we move forward in the series, it’s no longer possible to ignore the flaws in his books. Impossible for us to ignore, and impossible for the show to ignore. (mine: doesn't mention which are these "flaws").

[...]Yara going to rescue her brother Theon? Davos pleading Stannis’s case? Off-book. The small council meeting with the comedy stylings of Mace Tyrell? Off-book. That fantastic conversation between Varys and Oberyn? Off-book. Even Hizdahr’s speech to Dany about reclaiming the body of his father was off-book. And as much as the book purist in me wants to revolt, I can’t deny that what the show is doing here is very smart. In fact, they might be telling a better story than the books. [still, doesn't say why these dialogues are wrong in the book for not exist. And Mace being funny in the Council is in the books, in Dance.]

I would never tell someone to not read George R.R. Martin’s books. They’re crammed with history and detail that the TV show can never hope to match. [so, the books are more detailed. Funny, considering previews paragraph says books are lacking]

But I will also tell every potential book reader this truth: George R.R. Martin has written three very solid books (Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords), one pretty shaky book (A Feast for Crows), and one fairly decent book (A Dance with Dragons).

The show is currently rocketing its way through the last of A Storm of Swords and if the show runners had chosen to stick too closely to the books, you’d find yourself bogged down next season in a sea of new characters, a lot of financial drama, and, to quote Dany, you’d be all “WHERE ARE MY DRAGONS?!” [explains that in the next books, some characters are missing. Correct. Still, doesn't have anything to do with characters like Varys being given "original dialogue" And, wouldn't have been better to make the audience start bonding with the new characters now?]

Because, for reasons known only to him, Martin left most of the fan favorites he hadn’t killed yet out of A Feast for Crows entirely. [not true, we know the reasons (even if we don't like them). This is a very biased and misinformed statement]

In writing his books, Martin unwisely bumped off characters faster than he could replace them. [he adds more storylines and characters, sinner! For some reason, this is the only fandom that has problem with that. Go and ask the Pottereggs how they would feel with a Luna or a Remus chapter]

A Storm of Swords, with its double fatal weddings and the five or more additional deaths the show hasn’t even gotten to yet, is a blood bath. So here is what the clever showrunners are doing to prepare you for the coming seasons. They’re asking you to invest in something new.  [wrong. They are asking us to be involved in something new FOR the characters we already had. They should have made us involved with something new, like the Dornish new characters. They didn't]

In order to do so, they’re filling the spaces in-between the big prestige moments (Joffrey’s death, Tyrion’s trial, the many more deaths to come) with non-book material. [So, they are adding fillers to prepare next season being filled with new stuff? Where is this new stuff? It's just the same characters having the storylines of other characters.]

But do non-book events like the fight at Craster’s Keep or Yara’s mission to save Theon feel like a waste of time to book readers?

[Yes. This was written after Tyrion and Oberyn's speech in Ep. 7 of S4, I think. And we know that the whole Craster's Keep and Yara's mission was awful. It leaded to nowhere. This critic is simply hoping the show will be better by changing things from the book and adding more "action". Guess what? he failed. And the worst part is that he is already saying that the show is better because they will do things that, after they did, also failed. What was the purpose of Yara rescuing Theon? Nothing, it was a pike in the narrative, something for desperately put some action in the scene, but with zero consequences excepts making Yara look like an idiot afraid of dogs.]

[...]We’re invested. Invested in Davos, after he addresses the Iron Bank. Isn’t it remarkable how we’re already head over heels for Oberyn Martell after only meeting him a few episodes ago? Didn’t his off-book antics in both the small council and his exchange with Varys enhance that? (Even you book readers have to agree that both Pedro Pascal’s Oberyn and Charles Dance’s Tywin are improvements over already great book characters.) And we’re invested, or at least intrigued, by Hizdahr and his tale of woe. At least, that seems to be the goal. Your mileage may vary. [People being involved with Oberyn was 50% Martin's writing, 50% Pascal being an amazing actor. And Hizdahr died poorly. And what it served that the IB gave Stannis money? ]

[..]You’ll be grateful we’re zipping through Dany’s time in Meereen. Remember when the show weighed her down in Qarth for all of Season 2? Dan Weiss, David Benioff, and their team of clever writers would likely never insult Martin, who has created something truly extraordinary in A Song of Ice and Fire, by pointing out his flaws. [lol]

 So, with all due respect to Martin, let me do it for them. And let’s all give Weiss, Benioff, and company credit for trying to anticipate the challenges of the story to come and making sure that the experience of watching Season 5 is a lot more pleasant than the experience of reading the fourth book.

So, this review was pretty much "the show is better because I think they will do things that I think are better", and at the end, they did NONE of those things. " Season 5 is a lot more pleasant than the experience of reading the fourth book", lol.

 

'Game of Thrones' vs. the books: Why the TV version just won

Opinion [at least...]

So far, one character has died in the show instead of being improbably saved and sent off on an unlikely quest; another has discovered the target of her quest instead of wandering aimlessly; another got elected to a new role in a far more believable fashion. [Brienne and Jon. The first one, dunno. Yet, doesn't actually mention many details. It's bad bc I say so!]

Two fan favorites are off on a mission to Dorne together, a much better use of their time than the nothing they get up to in the books, while one familiar face returns at just the right moment instead of never being seen again. [Critic doesn't say what this "nothing" Jaime is doing. "he doesn't kill people, he does nothing!". If I read this, I would feel Jaime went to vacations to Asshai]

In short, TV viewers win, because they do not have to slog through three thousand pages of what reads like shaggy dog stories. Their version of Westeros has a more condensed, more engaging cast of characters. [in short, tv win because tv is a different format than books, and i say this one is better]

It is the one I'd much rather inhabit. [good luck not being killed by your kin]

[blah about the books]

And then? Martin spun his words, and his characters spun their wheels. He sat in his home in New Mexico typing out page after page, introducing new character after new character into his world of Westeros but not really advancing any of their storylines –- and certainly not at his previous speed. A Feast for Crows came out in 2005, and it only contained half of the characters we’d become familiar with. No Daenerys. No Jaime Lannister. We knew nothing about Jon Snow. [this guy totally knows what he's talking about, right?]

In the introduction to A Feast for Crows, Martin admitted that the second half of his narrative had spun out of his control, and would hopefully be released the next year under the title A Dance With Dragons. In fact, it wouldn’t be released for another five years. [he didn't say so]

[Martin and books bashing] Wrong. We're interested in anything that has to do with the characters we've fallen in love with, or love to hate. We want to know if they live or die; we want to know who will win the game of thrones and survive the winter that's coming. [this person who hasn't even read the books well is telling what readers must like]

No longer. Now, instead of having a fake Mance Rayder burned at the stake while a real one suddenly agrees to become a spying bard in Winterfell, they simply burned Mance Rayder at the stake. His death matters now. [because Mance was spared so he would go and pursue a career somewhere...]

Ok, mostly reviews are like that. misinformed. THE SHOW IS BETTER BC I DIDNT LIKE THE BOOKS. That's not a real critic, specially when we consider that the decisions they have praised, have ended up being a disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

[Desert Fox]

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

I won't challenge you on the fact that it is silly, but really, I can't come up with another reason that d&d feel the need to go out of their way to change something that trivial to their story, yet very meaningful to book readers.  

Reason 1) They probably didn't know it was meaningful to you. All the writers read the books. Maybe they didn't have such a connection to those particular words that you did.

Reason 2) They thought their way was better. For "only cat" and "Edd fetch . . " I'd disagree. But they are the ones who get to decide.

Reason 3) They often change stuff because people are confused. Maybe they didn't think people would know what a block was. Or they wouldn't remember that Cateyln was called cat. Maybe they shot 10 takes, 5 each way and the only your sister was teh best one.

But the biggest reason is:

Reason 4) The opinions of hardcore bookreaders is near last on the list of things the writers consider.

[Desert Fox]

50 minutes ago, SerMixalot said:

oh and another: Ramsey killed Fat Walda and his nephew if full view of Winterfell, he killed a new mother and a new born by having dogs shred them.  How is this even remotely acceptable in any society, fictional or otherwise? and consistent with the North's hatred of Theon for "killing" Bran and Rickon

It's not. Roose foreshadowed end by saying something like "if you act like a wild dog, people will treat you like one." Ramsay is supposed to be an out of control psycho who is about to get what is coming to him. That's why I think Umber is going to betray Ramsay.

Also Ramsay rules by total fear. People hate his guts, but hear him more.

You can make the same argument for Roose Bolton. He killed Rob Stark in cold blood. Or Walder Frey.

I also think there is a theme or a plotline in the show that the nobility is losing control of the kingdom because of the nasty shit they've been doing. The lawlessness is allowing monsters to get away with shit they never could.

[Darkstream]

5 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Reason 1) They probably didn't know it was meaningful to you. All the writers read the books. Maybe they didn't have such a connection to those particular words that you did.

Reason 2) They thought their way was better. For "only cat" and "Edd fetch . . " I'd disagree. But they are the ones who get to decide.

Reason 3) They often change stuff because people are confused. Maybe they didn't think people would know what a block was. Or they wouldn't remember that Cateyln was called cat. Maybe they shot 10 takes, 5 each way and the only your sister was teh best one.

But the biggest reason is:

Reason 4) The opinions of hardcore bookreaders is near last on the list of things the writers consider.

And number 4 is why I feel disrespected by them, without the hardcore book readers who supported and praised the show in season one, the show would not have seen the success that it has. Without the source material, that they did originally attempt to stay faithful to in the beginning, Got would have never been a good enough show to make it past the first season. The reason Got became so popular is because the casual fans started tuning in due to the overwhelming positive praise the show received in the first season by hardcore book fans. Sure, it's their show and they can do what they want, and If they don't care about the book readers anymore because they have a mass following of people that don't care about a quality adaption being made, then fine, but your point just validates my criticism and feelings towards them.

[Desert Fox]

5 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And number 4 is why I feel disrespected by them, without the hardcore book readers who supported and praised the show in season one, the show would not have seen the success that it has. Without the source material, that they did originally attempt to stay faithful to in the beginning, Got would have never been a good enough show to make it past the first season. The reason Got became so popular is because the casual fans started tuning in due to the overwhelming positive praise the show received in the first season by hardcore book fans. Sure, it's their show and they can do what they want, and If they don't care about the book readers anymore because they have a mass following of people that don't care about a quality adaption being made, then fine, but your point just validates my criticism and feelings towards them.

One mans disrespect is another mans entitlement.

The shows success has essentially nothing to do with hardcore book readers viewership.

[Ser Gareth]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

One mans disrespect is another mans entitlement.

The shows success has essentially nothing to do with hardcore book readers viewership.

 

11 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And number 4 is why I feel disrespected by them, without the hardcore book readers who supported and praised the show in season one, the show would not have seen the success that it has. Without the source material, that they did originally attempt to stay faithful to in the beginning, Got would have never been a good enough show to make it past the first season. The reason Got became so popular is because the casual fans started tuning in due to the overwhelming positive praise the show received in the first season by hardcore book fans. Sure, it's their show and they can do what they want, and If they don't care about the book readers anymore because they have a mass following of people that don't care about a quality adaption being made, then fine, but your point just validates my criticism and feelings towards them.

I think you over estimate our support.  Most hard core book readers were very critical of the first season, including myself.  Most of my discussions with Unsullied during the first season was telling them to read the books instead as they were so much better and I know other hard core book fans were the same.  The show is a success on its own merits and a stellar advertising campaign.

[Ser Gareth]

7 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

One mans disrespect is another mans entitlement.

The shows success has essentially nothing to do with hardcore book readers viewership.

100% agree.

And also this forum is not vocally representative of how most people feel about the show.  There are critical threads galore with seemingly lots of posters sticking the knife in.  But when you look closer it's pretty much the same posters posting over and over again and most of the show criticisms are far from constructive.  A quick look at the per episode rating threads clearly demonstrates even on this forum most people are happy with the show.  They just don't speak up about it.  Probably because the anti-show posters are more passionate and aggressive and those that generally like the show can't be bothered to debate back.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And number 4 is why I feel disrespected by them, without the hardcore book readers who supported and praised the show in season one, the show would not have seen the success that it has. Without the source material, that they did originally attempt to stay faithful to in the beginning, Got would have never been a good enough show to make it past the first season. The reason Got became so popular is because the casual fans started tuning in due to the overwhelming positive praise the show received in the first season by hardcore book fans. Sure, it's their show and they can do what they want, and If they don't care about the book readers anymore because they have a mass following of people that don't care about a quality adaption being made, then fine, but your point just validates my criticism and feelings towards them.

Even if this was true, and I don't think it  is, seeing as how most people I know who have been watching the show from season one had never read the books or read the books after the show started airing ( in fact Martin has more to thank the show for than the other way round, loving his new rock star 'doesn't have to bother with writing lifestyle )

Even if it was true, I think the show has quite often shown a great deal of love for the books and reverence, and has done since day one. That it has to move away from the source material is due to necessity, and if its a choice between putting in a line that is supposedly loved by people and one that helps make whats happening less confusing then its clear what choice should be made.

[Meera of Tarth]

20 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

One mans disrespect is another mans entitlement.

The shows success has essentially nothing to do with hardcore book readers viewership.

Well; I should disagree.....I started watching GOT because a friend (who was both a show fan and a passionate reader) encouraged me to watch it. She said she had watched the first two seasons and they were amazing, very similar to the books, and that I should watch it or read them.

Having said that, I'm not fond of reading very big books....so I preferred watching.....and after watching the first 4 seasons I didn't want to read the books because I thought they were huge and that I'd be bored reading the same I had previously watched, but she insisted on this......now you should read the books!!

And I'm grateful to her  because I enjoyed them a lot

So, if it hadn't been for a book reader insisting on it, I wouldn't have watched GOT. (Although Without having watched GOT I wouldn't have read the books)

[Ser Gareth]

36 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Reason 1) They probably didn't know it was meaningful to you. All the writers read the books. Maybe they didn't have such a connection to those particular words that you did.

Reason 2) They thought their way was better. For "only cat" and "Edd fetch . . " I'd disagree. But they are the ones who get to decide.

Reason 3) They often change stuff because people are confused. Maybe they didn't think people would know what a block was. Or they wouldn't remember that Cateyln was called cat. Maybe they shot 10 takes, 5 each way and the only your sister was teh best one.

But the biggest reason is:

Reason 4) The opinions of hardcore bookreaders is near last on the list of things the writers consider.

1) TV show or movie adaptations are rarely as good as the books.  There are very good reasons for this.  If a book reader truly expects the visual adaptation to be as good as the book then they're going to be extremely disappointed.  Indeed if a visual adaptation is half as good as the book then the screen writers have done well.

2) I'd say the above is doubly true for ASOIAF due to the sheer size of the story and the amount of characters the series has introduced.  AFFC & ADWD are especially difficult books to adapt whilst keeping a TV audience captive as they're bridge books.  ADWD alone is bigger than the LOTR trilogy combined.  When you take into consideration everything that happens in LOTR and compare it to plot advancement in ADWD it's easy to tell there is a problem.

3) In truth the show should never have existed.  It's too big an undertaking.  But somehow despite this it does exist and it's wildly popular.  So it's clearly doing something right.

4) Whilst fanatical book readers would love a 100% accurate adaptations of the books, most others would not.  It's almost a mandatory requirement that the visual medium has to change it up a bit for two reasons.  i)  So it's easier to follow (as we don't see the internal thoughts of the characters on screen) and ii) to keep it fresh so that non-fanatical book readers (who vastly out number the fanatics) can still be surprised.  Sometimes this works well.  Sometimes not.  Indeed GRRM wrote screenplays for the show that differed from the books, including IMO one of the cheesiest, ridiculous and pointless scenes where Bronn & the Hound effectively have a dick measuring contest.

5) Book readers, both fanatical and non-fanatical, garnered a (deserved from what I could tell) reputation of being smug pricks, hence the rather insulting term Unsullied to TV viewers.  D&D have also come under increased personal attacks as the TV series has gone on.

6) GRRM was extremely supportive of the show in the beginning.  It has become clear as the seasons have gone on that his support has waned and some of his not so subtle rebukes have been childish IMO.

7) Due to points 5 & 6 I think D&D have also not covered themselves in any glory.  They should have been professional and not take it to heart but I think it's clear they feel irked and have also acted childish in retribution.

8) That said because of the stinging criticism thrown their way by a fanatical portion of the ASOIAF fandom I can understand why they feel the need to justify certain scenes and confirm GRRM advised them of them.

9) Both GRRM and ASOIAF core support keeping repeating the mantra the show and the TV series are different stories.  If this is the case then the show runners don't have to care about hard core book readers at all.

10) Lastly, as far as I am aware no one is forcing anybody to watch the show.  So ASOIAF fans who hate the show or don't want to be spoiled by the show can easily not watch the show and stay away from any GOT articles.  It's very easy to do.

[Desert Fox]

7 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Well; I should disagree.....I started watching GOT because a friend (who was both a show fan and a passionate reader) encouraged me to watch it. She said she had watched the first two seasons and they were amazing, very similar to the books, and that I should watch it or read them.

Having said that, I'm not fond of reading very big books....so I preferred watching.....and after watching the first 4 seasons I didn't want to read the books because I thought they were huge and that I'd be bored reading the same I had previously watched, but she insisted on this......now you should read the books!!

And I'm grateful to her  because I enjoyed them a lot

So, if it hadn't been for a book reader insisting on it, I wouldn't have watched GOT. (Although Without having watched GOT I wouldn't have read the books)

Obviously the popularity of the book series is the entire reason the show even exists. I don't want to argue against that.

But there just aren't enough hardcore book fans to make or break the show.

[Ser Gareth]

12 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Even if this was true, and I don't think it  is, seeing as how most people I know who have been watching the show from season one had never read the books or read the books after the show started airing ( in fact Martin has more to thank the show for than the other way round, loving his new rock star 'doesn't have to bother with writing lifestyle )

Even if it was true, I think the show has quite often shown a great deal of love for the books and reverence, and has done since day one. That it has to move away from the source material is due to necessity, and if its a choice between putting in a line that is supposedly loved by people and one that helps make whats happening less confusing then its clear what choice should be made.

Nail on head.  That's what so many people fail to grasp.  GRRM wanted this.  He wanted the recognition and glory.

As far as I am concerned there is only one legitimate reason why ASOIAF fans should truly hate the adaptation.  And that reason is it made GRRM famous and in demand and during that period he milked it so much that he rarely had time to write the next novel.  By his own admission he wasn't going to turn down free holidays to Dubai.  Deadlines and book readers be damned basically.  This said there is no guarantee he was going to finish the series anyway but I do believe we'd have TWOW by now if it hadn't been for the show.

I am pissed off the show has overtaken the books.  I am pissed off there are big reveals in the show that will lessen their impact in the books massively.  But unlike most other fanatical book readers (of which I count myself as one) I don't blame the show for this at all.