Is There Anything On The Show That You Think Is Better Than The Books?

[Darkstream]

Well, to give credit where it's due, d$d did outdo George when it came to fleshing out Tyene Sand's character. I mean, how much deeper could you get than "bad pussy"? 

[Cron]

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Well, to give credit where it's due, d$d did outdo George when it came to fleshing out Tyene Sand's character. I mean, how much deeper could you get than "bad pussy"? 

interesting, very interesting.

My prediction:  Ellaria and two of the Sand Snakes (Nymeria and Obara) will die, but Tyene will live and end up with Bronn.

Your thoughts?

[Cron]

11 hours ago, Karmarni said:

No way! Too much focus? A further depth than the books? Fully brought to life? I'm gobsmacked. That's tantamount to saying this sophomoric-humored show has some kind of deeper insight into the characters than the books' author.

I 100% disagree. The books are far more in-depth, the characterization richer, you can see INTO THEIR MINDS, what could be better? An actor smirking at the screen? An actor failing to even miss his/her direwolf? An actor telling stupid jokes that fall flat? An actor going on about the morality of killing beetles?

As to the OP, some of the sets are pretty.

Thanks, but hey, I liked the "Cousin Orson and the beetles" scene!!!

HARR!!!

(Actually, i did.  The scene was probably a little longer than necessary, but any scene that's just Jaime and Tyrion talking together is something I'm probably going to like.)

[Iron Mother]

12 hours ago, Karmarni said:

No way! Too much focus? A further depth than the books? Fully brought to life?

... at the expense of not being able, then, to create time for other characters or omitting them from the show altogether.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

things the show did better -

many inserted scenes in season 1 - the Stark Family, intro in 101, Viserys and Jorah in the dragon egg stealing scene, Tywin's intro while butchering the stag, Yoren scenes, Aliser Thorne scenes., etc.

Aliser Thorne in general. The show made him a much fuller, more complex character than the books. He was competent, and made a fine main antagonist for Jon. In particular, the conversation he had with Jon about leadership early in 409 was excellent. Featuring Olly instead of Thorne at Jon's assassination was a monumental screw-up.

Theon's season 2 arc. Outstanding in the books, but even a bit better in the show. The letter burning scene, and the conversation with Luwin in 210 were great.

Some stories that were fine in the books get changed for the show because they must, and are still good. I liked book!Harrenhal in ACoK, but the changed version in s02 of the show worked better on TV. Likewise for Hardhome.

Basically, I see D&D as being scene-centric writers. When they have a good plot supplied by GRRM to work with, they can do a good job embellishing it. But they are lousy at writing their own plots, and they may not even care. Even in early seasons, their original plots (Talisa, Qarth dragon-theft, Gendry to Dragonstone, Return to Craster's Keep) were weak. Seasons 5 and 6 simply emphasize the point.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

1 hour ago, Ibbison from Ibben said:

Basically, I see D&D as being scene-centric writers. When they have a good plot supplied by GRRM to work with, they can do a good job embellishing it. But they are lousy at writing their own plots, and they may not even care

Agree. The same thing with re-writing characters like Talissa or Sansa.

Off-top: I read you theory about Howland Reed and found it awesome, though I'm not a big fan of hidden Targ theories. And I always thought that Meera would be a great match for Jon!

[Ibbison from Ibben]

14 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Agree. The same thing with re-writing characters like Talissa or Sansa.

Off-top: I read you theory about Howland Reed and found it awesome, though I'm not a big fan of hidden Targ theories. And I always thought that Meera would be a great match for Jon!

Thanks.

Another show change I liked - Older Margaery. Particularly in s03 in the Great Sept scene, where she shows Joff how to make the mob love him instead of fear him. I thought they should have let her figure out who poisoned Joff herself, though, instead of needing Olenna to tell her.

[JonSnow4President]

4 hours ago, Ibbison from Ibben said:

 

Basically, I see D&D as being scene-centric writers. When they have a good plot supplied by GRRM to work with, they can do a good job embellishing it. But they are lousy at writing their own plots, and they may not even care. Even in early seasons, their original plots (Talisa, Qarth dragon-theft, Gendry to Dragonstone, Return to Craster's Keep) were weak. Seasons 5 and 6 simply emphasize the point.

I can agree with that.  They have many absolutely outstanding scenes that suffer from long term characterization suddenly changing, or simply getting facts wrong, or not picking up on how different actions should have affected this or that.  But watch just that scene on youtube, and they are fantastic (how I feel about the Jaime/Edmure scene this year).

However, from a story telling standpoint and an overall writing standpoint (as in over the full season), If they were quarterbacks, every now and then they'd make a beautiful arcing throw for a long TD, but it's surrounded by buttfumbles. 

[Darkstream]

15 hours ago, Cron said:

interesting, very interesting.

My prediction:  Ellaria and two of the Sand Snakes (Nymeria and Obara) will die, but Tyene will live and end up with Bronn.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts? Well to be completely honest, there isn't much left in the show that I give a flying rat's ass about anymore, and that goes ten fold for anything to do with Dorne or the Sandsnakes.

That said, I think if d$d commit any of their so called "limited screen time" in any way to developing a romance between Bronn and Tyene, it would be a pointless and wasteful use of time that could be used to focus on the several aspects of the story that have been severely neglected up to this point.

So yeah, considering that, I see it as very likely that d$d would go there.

[JonSnow4President]

Still waiting on your 3 more fleshed out characters @Iron Mother.

[dsug]

2 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Still waiting on your 3 more fleshed out characters @Iron Mother.

Not IronMother but...

Cersei Lannister

Margaery Tyrell

High Sparrow

[JonSnow4President]

6 minutes ago, dsug said:

Not IronMother but...

Cersei Lannister

Margaery Tyrell

High Sparrow

No. Her motivations are more relatable and she is less of a villain in the show, but that doesn't make her deeper or more developed.  

Once again, choosing to focus on a minor character at the expense of a major character.  Show Marg is also fundamentally different than book Marg.  

"I had a party once.  It was terrible." Doesn't really speak of extra character development.  Also don't forget that his real time for development has been this season, where we don't have the book equivalent.  It's comparing an apple seed to an apple tree.

[dsug]

8 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

No. Her motivations are more relatable and she is less of a villain in the show, but that doesn't make her deeper or more developed.  

Once again, choosing to focus on a minor character at the expense of a major character.  Show Marg is also fundamentally different than book Marg.  

"I had a party once.  It was terrible." Doesn't really speak of extra character development.  Also don't forget that his real time for development has been this season, where we don't have the book equivalent.  It's comparing an apple seed to an apple tree.

1. No. In the books Cersei is a mentally ill alcoholic who hates Margaery for being prettier than her. That is her entire arc past ASOS. In the show, Cersei's paranoia stems from genuine scheming by the Tyrells. Her descent into madness has been more gradual and compelling to watch, rather than when she wakes up one morning at the start of AFFC and is suddenly craaaAAAAaazy. Her relationship with Tommen is much deeper than "drunk, mean mom" like in the books. She's not completely cold, at first, and is capable of feeling something every once and a while. Book Cersei is awesome and endearing in her own way, but Show Cersei is an exponentially more rounded, believable, and complex woman. 

2. What main character has suffered over the fact that Margaery is an actual character on the show? A couple quick scenes to establish that she has an actual personality and working brain, rather than Cersei just obsessing over how she wishes she had more acne is no harm to any other characters. 

3. Even before S6, the High Sparrow was more charismatic and I could actually believe that the common folk would get behind him. In the books, he is a religious misogynist. End of character development. They both think they are doing what is right by the gods, but the show takes it further and shows the High Sparrow's intellect beyond simply following the Seven. 

[JonSnow4President]

3 minutes ago, dsug said:

1. No. In the books Cersei is a mentally ill alcoholic who hates Margaery for being prettier than her. That is her entire arc past ASOS.

I think you need to read again.  

In the show, Cersei's paranoia stems from genuine scheming by the Tyrells.

Yes, because they're totally not scheming in the books.  They scheme much less in the show.

Her descent into madness has been more gradual and compelling to watch, rather than when she wakes up one morning at the start of AFFC and is suddenly craaaAAAAaazy.

First, Cersei goes through huge events that drive that paranoia immediately preceding AFFC.  Rereading the first 3 books is completely consistent with Cersei in AFFC.

Her relationship with Tommen is much deeper than "drunk, mean mom" like in the books.

How? Early seasons, nothing in the show besides him being in a few scenes.  I cannot think of a single scene in the show that gives a deeper meaning in the show.  She doesn't even mourn him at the end of season 6.  She doesn't teach him anything.  He has more time with the High Sparrow or Marg than he does with Cersei.

She's not completely cold, at first, and is capable of feeling something every once and a while. Book Cersei is awesome and endearing in her own way, but Show Cersei is an exponentially more rounded, believable, and complex woman. 

 

3 minutes ago, dsug said:

2. What main character has suffered over the fact that Margaery is an actual character on the show? A couple quick scenes to establish that she has an actual personality and working brain, rather than Cersei just obsessing over how she wishes she had more acne is no harm to any other characters. 

SANSA.

3 minutes ago, dsug said:

3. Even before S6, the High Sparrow was more charismatic and I could actually believe that the common folk would get behind him. In the books, he is a religious misogynist. End of character development. They both think they are doing what is right by the gods, but the show takes it further and shows the High Sparrow's intellect beyond simply following the Seven. 

Once again, you're injecting season 6, which is past the books.  Season 5 doesn't develop him any more than ADWD.  

[dsug]

@JonSnow4President

1. Oh then please enlighten me on the depths of Cersei's storyline in AFFC. She gets drunk multiple times a chapter, she fingers some woman she barely knows, she hates Margaery and concocts an entire scheme to get rid of her because she feels threatened by her beauty. Yes, the Tyrells are implied to be scheming behind the scenes, but we never have any confirmation of that, other than Cersei's crazy ass rants about it. 

2. Just because you don't like Sansa's storyline doesn't mean that you can blame it on the existence of another character. The fact that you didn't like Sansa in S5-6 has absolutely no correlation to Margaery's expanded role on the show. 

3. I'm not. Watch his first meeting with Cersei, feeding the poor with his own hands. Watch his meeting with Olenna, scrubbing the floors and telling her that the smallfolk are no longer afraid of her. Watch the scene where he arrests Margaery (which they actually showed on screen) where he clearly plays the game all on his own. 

 

[JonSnow4President]

2 hours ago, dsug said:

@JonSnow4President

1. Oh then please enlighten me on the depths of Cersei's storyline in AFFC. She gets drunk multiple times a chapter, she fingers some woman she barely knows, she hates Margaery and concocts an entire scheme to get rid of her because she feels threatened by her beauty. Yes, the Tyrells are implied to be scheming behind the scenes, but we never have any confirmation of that, other than Cersei's crazy ass rants about it. 

Cersei is probably the best developed in the show, so the difference isn't anywhere as extreme as the likes of Jon, Dany, Tyrion, etc.  The show trades Cersei's love and desire for power in for a more normal love of her children (until they die, at which point it's totally whatever in her reaction).  From a power standpoint, she actually doesn't do anything ambitious that isn't directly tied to trying to keep Margery away from Tommen.  I think love for children is more relatable to a modern audience, but it's not deeper.  In the show, there isn't any hint of the complicated view she has of her children.  This very forum has gone back and forth ad-nauseum over how pure that love is, and because it is complicated, there isn't a clear answer.  That's the depth that's not there in the shows portrayal. While there's a struggle with her trying to help her son and Tommen shunning her, it doesn't ever get the chance to get that added layer to it. Her relationship with Jaime, and their evolving opinions of each other also is deeper than the "Larrol 4EVER!!!!!" of the show.  Where is the conflict of her desire to simultaneously live up to Tywin and outshine him in everyway, while performing the mental gymnastics required to think she is capable of doing that?

Cersei's conflict with Margery is purely over Tommen in the show.  In the books, it's a complicated mix of fear for Margery taking her power, fear for Margery taking Tommen away from her (which is in part tied to the power), and finally and to a much smaller degree than you try to make it because she is insecure of the young beautiful woman.  

The Tyells are clearly schemers.  In both show and books, they try and up their position by marrying Sansa, the claimant to the North.  They try and install their own people on the small council to expand their fingerprint beyond just Mance (doesn't happen in show).  In both media, they plot to kill Joffrey, but confirm the information given by Littlefinger before they go through with the plan.  Because of cuts to Garlan and Willas, they don't get the opportunity in the show to expand their powerbase through the spoils of war like they do through Garlan in the books.  They don't place a young son into the Kingsguard to protect Margery.  I don't know how you can look at books that contain everything the show does and decide that it's only suggested in the books but confirmed in the show?

2 hours ago, dsug said:

2. Just because you don't like Sansa's storyline doesn't mean that you can blame it on the existence of another character. The fact that you didn't like Sansa in S5-6 has absolutely no correlation to Margaery's expanded role on the show. 

Sansa's storyline in the show in Kings Landing is essentially nonexistant.  She is the passive stand-in that the worst type of reader takes away from the book story.  She doesn't get a chance to decide on potential escape opportunities on her own.  She doesn't get to analyze the political situation (given the Shae relationship, they had a confidant set up they could use).  She doesn't resist where she is able, like not kneeling for Tyrion, or make comments that on the surface can refer to Joffrey but actually refer to her brother.  

Quite simply, the promotion of Margery takes away time from Sansa as one of the 3 main characters in that area.  It's not a matter of me not liking it in the show.  It's a matter of there simply not being time for her to have a storyline beyond abuse victim in the show. 

2 hours ago, dsug said:

3. I'm not. Watch his first meeting with Cersei, feeding the poor with his own hands. Watch his meeting with Olenna, scrubbing the floors and telling her that the smallfolk are no longer afraid of her. Watch the scene where he arrests Margaery (which they actually showed on screen) where he clearly plays the game all on his own. 

He clearly plays the game all on his own in the books when interacting with Cersei.  He only gets her arrest, but his role in securing the Faith Militant for the faith is much more active in the books, as opposed to an idea pulled out of Cersei's ass in the show.  As opposed to believing the smallfolk could get behind him after the Sparrows show up in Kings Landing in force all of a sudden, the books take the time to sow the seeds of the chaos in the Riverlands that drives the Sparrows together, and shows them becoming a force on the way to Kings Landing.  

As to this all, I want to point out that this is once again a secondary character.  Even if you disagree with me and think that secondary characters like Margery and the High Sparrow are deeper, it is a mistake when it takes away from the time to develop characters like Jon, Dany, Arya, Sansa, Jaime, Tyrion, Stannis, and Brienne (I'll leave out Cersei since you're convinced she's deeper). So if you disagree with me on the characterization of Margery and the High Sparrow, kudos to praising them for ignoring the main characters.

[Lovely Lyanna]

On 8/14/2016 at 0:14 PM, Cron said:

Whenever a book is adapted to the screen (t.v. and/or movie screen), the book is almost always going to remain better if for no other reason than b/c of time limitations that make it virtually impossible to fully adapt with the same level of detail as a book has.

    That statement is not true. For instance The movie The Godfather is much better than the book. Forrest Gump is much better in movie form. The movie Jaws is better than the book. Just seeing the shark for a few seconds is much more fun. Silence of the Lambs is much more interesting with Anthony Hopkins. I think that whether or not the book is better is just sort of a toss up. Shawshank Redemption is an interesting little novella, but the movie is excellent. I also like No Country for Old Men much better as a movie. There are times where I like the book much better, but to use the word always in inaccurate.

     In Game of Thrones there were some definite improvements. I love Stannis and Ser Davos much better in the show. Robert really came alive on the screen. I liked the show version of Cat better even though I am not a fan of Cat. Brienne and Marjorie are more interesting.  

[JonSnow4President]

9 minutes ago, Lovely Lyanna said:

 

     In Game of Thrones there were some definite improvements. I love Stannis and Ser Davos much better in the show. Robert really came alive on the screen. I liked the show version of Cat better even though I am not a fan of Cat. Brienne and Marjorie are more interesting.  

I get that these are your personal opinions, but I cannot comprehend how anyone could think the bolded (while I disagree, I can see why someone would say Brienne and Margery, and Mark Addy was phenomenal). It's like seeing someone say that they like cockroach infestations, noxious bean farts, and kidney stones.  

With Stannis so slimmed down and turned to driven by ambition instead of being the king who cared, willing to be the "man in ten thousand" who will fulfill his duty no matter what it costs to him or his loved ones.  He knows his actions are consuming him heart and soul but continues anyway.  He also has a meritocratic streak, shown by promoting Davos and rewarding (and punishing) actions based on those who have earned them, especially after his mistake of making Florent his Admiral.  He is one of only 2 rulers that prioritizes good governance (Dany being the other), although Robb never had a chance to rule outside wartime.  

Davos doesn't seem particularly different as a person between show and books (writing issues aside), so I can see liking Cunningham more than your projection of the book.  

Like Stannis, I also don't see Catelyn.  She's just kind of there for the vast majority of the show.  When she's with Tyrion, she takes a backseat to him.  When she's with Robb, she's in the backseat.  She's our viewpoint to Renly and Stannis' meeting, but is a passive setpiece compared to the active political agent of the books.  

I'm just curious what the particular attraction is to the show versions, and why you think they are better than their book counterparts.  

[Cron]

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

My thoughts? Well to be completely honest, there isn't much left in the show that I give a flying rat's ass about anymore, and that goes ten fold for anything to do with Dorne or the Sandsnakes.

That said, I think if d$d commit any of their so called "limited screen time" in any way to developing a romance between Bronn and Tyene, it would be a pointless and wasteful use of time that could be used to focus on the several aspects of the story that have been severely neglected up to this point.

So yeah, considering that, I see it as very likely that d$d would go there.

Good stuff, I enjoyed reading it all.

But I like Bronn a lot (as a fictional character, and I'm certainly not saying I like everything he does or his almost complete lack of a moral compass), and I think more scenes with Bronn and Tyene would be highly entertaining.

You make a really good point about limited time though, so who knows, maybe the show runners will end up agreeing with you after all.

[Cron]

1 hour ago, Lovely Lyanna said:

    That statement is not true. For instance The movie The Godfather is much better than the book. Forrest Gump is much better in movie form. The movie Jaws is better than the book. Just seeing the shark for a few seconds is much more fun. Silence of the Lambs is much more interesting with Anthony Hopkins. I think that whether or not the book is better is just sort of a toss up. Shawshank Redemption is an interesting little novella, but the movie is excellent. I also like No Country for Old Men much better as a movie. There are times where I like the book much better, but to use the word always in inaccurate.

     In Game of Thrones there were some definite improvements. I love Stannis and Ser Davos much better in the show. Robert really came alive on the screen. I liked the show version of Cat better even though I am not a fan of Cat. Brienne and Marjorie are more interesting.  

Well, I said "almost always" in my post you replied to, not just "always," but I guess I should also have said the book is almost always better "to me," since of course I don't believe the book is always better to everybody. My goodness, there are people who despise books and love movies (in fact, that probably describes a decent percentage of the population, maybe even 50% or more)

In any event, good conversation,and great food for thought.

Godfather: I didn't read it, but the movies were all great.

Forrest Gump:  I read the book years before the movie came out, the book was better to me (although the movie is great)

Jaws:  I read the book, the book was better (the movie was overrated, the shark actually has VERY little screen time, and my imagination of the shark was more powerful than what they put on the screen.)

Silence of the Lambs:  Never read it, never bothered to watch the movie, that stuff doesn't interest me.

Shawshank:  I read it long before the movie came out, and felt the movie and book (or novella) were about equal (both great).  This is a close one, I'll give you that, but note that here they did NOT have to chop large amounts of the story, cuz the written version was so short to begin with.

No Country For Old Men:  Never read the book (didn't even know it was a book), saw the movie, wasn't very impressed.  It was decent, but not impressive, nothing special to me at all.

Game of Thrones:  Books are better overall to me, but there ARE some things on the show that are better.

But consider this:  How badly would the ASOIAF have been butchered if they had crushed each book into a two hour movie?

Wow.

Well, that's what's done with most adaptations, cuz the vast majority of adaptaions are NOT 10 hours (or close to that) of screen time per book.  No way.  FAR more often, they take a 700 page (or whatever) book and cram it into two hours, chopping out huge chunks of the story in the process.

And to me, that's what I meant when I said the books are almost always better, cuz most of the time the level of detail in the average book is FAR greater than the level of detail in the average two hour movie adaptation (and some movies are even less than two hours, in fact that's common;  two hours would be a longer than average movie, in my strong opinion)

Final thought:  Try to imagine a two hour movie which attempts to cover all of Book One (AGOT).

Wow.   Train wreck, in my opinion, and that sort of thing is far more common, to me, than the rare time when a movie (or t.v. show) is actually better than a book.

Just my opinions, though.