Jump to content

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


Cron

Recommended Posts

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 3:28 PM, Meera of Tarth said:

STANNIS' arc was messed uo in S5. He was at least somewhat consistent until they showed he did everything to save his daughter of her disease. You don't show that to show that he is troubled when he has to make the decision of killing her daughter.....he Just tells Mel a little surprised that he doesn't want and then......uuuuu she is burnt. They did it to make the audience hate his character trying to prepare them for his final scene with Brienne. Bad guys like him must die!!!!!

I think the setup is very clearly that caring for Shireen represents Stannis's personal compassion so if the focus of your story is a tragic tale of a character who destroys himself following "the ends justify the means" then it makes perfect sense that he kills her.

Granted I would have liked to see the desperate situation in Stannis's camp highlighted more but still I think where shown and told pretty unequivocally that he's facing defeat, perhaps he personally could escape back northwards but most of his force will die in the snow and any chance at becoming king with them.

On a personal level I think its sold very well, Dilane isn't tearing up the scenery acting wise but that's surely very in character ad well as much more effective generally. I think you very much sense get the sense of his extreme disgust when Mel first suggests it but also an acknowledgement of the reality of there situation,  Then in the scene just before it happens you get a pretty obvious acknowledgement that he's destroying his own future happiness to follow his ends justify the means path.

That Stannis doesn't become a drone like follower of Mel and indeed that personal ambition(although I think this aspect lessens post season 2) is caught up in the story as well for me gives it more weight and realism  Just having the character blindly misdirected into killing his daughter would have gotten him off much too easily IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

I think the setup is very clearly that caring for Shireen represents Stannis's personal compassion so if the focus of your story is a tragic tale of a character who destroys himself following "the ends justify the means" then it makes perfect sense that he kills her.

Granted I would have liked to see the desperate situation in Stannis's camp highlighted more but still I think where shown and told pretty unequivocally that he's facing defeat, perhaps he personally could escape back northwards but most of his force will die in the snow and any chance at becoming king with them.

On a personal level I think its sold very well, Dilane isn't tearing up the scenery acting wise but that's surely very in character ad well as much more effective generally. I think you very much sense get the sense of his extreme disgust when Mel first suggests it but also an acknowledgement of the reality of there situation,  Then in the scene just before it happens you get a pretty obvious acknowledgement that he's destroying his own future happiness to follow his ends justify the means path.

 

And that's one of my biggest concerns. We are not shown that amount of snow to justify the burning unless he is blinded by Mel:

And it's curious Bolton's don't have any problem with the snow: 

But they are less because his men don't like him as a leader after what he did to Shireen.

Quote

That Stannis doesn't become a drone like follower of Mel and indeed that personal ambition(although I think this aspect lessens post season 2) is caught up in the story as well for me gives it more weight and realism  Just having the character blindly misdirected into killing his daughter would have gotten him off much too easily IMHO.

That would have worked better IMHO. Being more blinded by Mel's stories. What we got is a mixture of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

And that's one of my biggest concerns. We are not shown that amount of snow to justify the burning unless he is blinded by Mel:

And it's curious Bolton's don't have any problem with the snow: 

But they are less because his men don't like him as a leader after what he did to Shireen.

That would have worked better IMHO. Being more blinded by Mel's stories. What we got is a mixture of things.

20 men well equipped for the weather is rather different than moving an army of thousands not so well equipped for it though. Again I would have liked to see more of STannis's camp in the snow but I think its sold well enough to take the characters word for it.

If you want Stannis to be basically a "good" character then having him become a brainwashed follower of Mel might be preferable but I think the character has much more dramatic depth if he believes in Mels powers/prophecy but retains his own moral judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

20 men well equipped for the weather is rather different than moving an army of thousands not so well equipped for it though. Again I would have liked to see more of STannis's camp in the snow but I think its sold well enough to take the characters word for it.

If you want Stannis to be basically a "good" character then having him become a brainwashed follower of Mel might be preferable but I think the character has much more dramatic depth if he believes in Mels powers/prophecy but retains his own moral judgement.

As a Stannis fan this is what gets me about his arch and why it was so screwed up and it isn't really touched on but it's the biggest mistake the show made. His arch in the books is directly tied to post red wedding politics in the North so in the shows point having him died completely separated from the North's plot is stupid. The reason it's stupid is then in S6 when Smalljon and Karstark showed up you are left asking questions about what the hell they are doing in S5. The Smalljon the show presented had better reasons to show up last year and give Rickon to Stannis seeing as Stannis just saved the North from the Wildlings and in turn Karstark had many reasons to show up because is Stannis won then he might try to install either a Stark or a Stark loyalist to win the North thus the family Karstark doens't want back is now back and he didn't do anything about it. An this doesn't just go for the Northern Lords either it makes Stannis and Roose look moronic also, why the hell is Stannis the guy the show built up as "the best military mind in Westeros" not recruiting locals who know about the land into his army? That is basic stuff any competent military commander does when he enters a foreign land from Alexander attacking Asia to Hannibal attacking Rome to Patton in Africa. Then in turn why is Roose not calling in any help with a freaking attacking army on his doorstep? He should be in a mentality of all hands on deck. But instead he calls in Karstarks help to find Sansa so he thinks finding a girl is more important than a siege? This all adds up because when you constantly have to ask questions about what the hell a character is thinking or doing it destroys the illusion of film/tv entertainment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything better in the show? No, I don't think there is. Nonetheless I very much enjoyed the first seasons, cringe slowly increased until somewhere between "weak men will never rule Dorne again, blood for the blood god", Varys strolling around in Meereen and look we killed another Direwolf just for shock value I stopped watching altogether.

Not that I like everything about the books, ... but the show did nowhere improve upon what I would see as shortcoming (Bolton killing off all other forces and no one ever notices, Asha & Co. fighting in the woods, GRRM style military strategy etc.), but messed up most of the story arcs for no obvious benefit. Lost or deformed stories from the book: Iron Isles, Dorne, Stannis in the North, Vale, Faith of the Seven, Meereen, Invasion of Aegon.

 

I fear that GRRM may end up committing mistakes similar to the show if he really forces a finale (and culls characters just to make it happen) ... as of now I would probably prefer reading one or two more great books and not see spring again and spite all the people who feel entitled to certain endings because of foreshadowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

As a Stannis fan this is what gets me about his arch and why it was so screwed up and it isn't really touched on but it's the biggest mistake the show made. His arch in the books is directly tied to post red wedding politics in the North so in the shows point having him died completely separated from the North's plot is stupid. The reason it's stupid is then in S6 when Smalljon and Karstark showed up you are left asking questions about what the hell they are doing in S5. The Smalljon the show presented had better reasons to show up last year and give Rickon to Stannis seeing as Stannis just saved the North from the Wildlings and in turn Karstark had many reasons to show up because is Stannis won then he might try to install either a Stark or a Stark loyalist to win the North thus the family Karstark doens't want back is now back and he didn't do anything about it. An this doesn't just go for the Northern Lords either it makes Stannis and Roose look moronic also, why the hell is Stannis the guy the show built up as "the best military mind in Westeros" not recruiting locals who know about the land into his army? That is basic stuff any competent military commander does when he enters a foreign land from Alexander attacking Asia to Hannibal attacking Rome to Patton in Africa. Then in turn why is Roose not calling in any help with a freaking attacking army on his doorstep? He should be in a mentality of all hands on deck. But instead he calls in Karstarks help to find Sansa so he thinks finding a girl is more important than a siege? This all adds up because when you constantly have to ask questions about what the hell a character is thinking or doing it destroys the illusion of film/tv entertainment. 

This kind of debate where I can see peoples point more, the stuff about show Stannis "burning shireen for no reason" on the other hand simply doesn't match what I saw on screen at all and comes across as having some kind of ulterior motive.

Going back to your point yeah this is definitely a shift and I can see why someone who enjoys the more complex politics of the story would consider it a bad adaptation. Again I think the prime motivation in the show was likely to have Stanniis effort to defeat the Boltons and Jon's effort to do so as two more separate plots that could unfold over a couple of seasons where as in the books these two things are I'd imagine more likely to be more interconnected. The show has IMHO always been more interested in Stannis the character than the politics around him.

Whilst there simplified I do think the shows northern politics at least make sense. For one thing of course Stannis doesn't need to push THAT hard for support in the short term, he has the Golden Company and is odds on to defeat the Boltons  if the weather doesn't strike and spending time trying to get support before attacking makes bad weather that much more likely. His logic would likely be if he does defeat the Boltons and potentially puts a Stark at winterfell then people will flock to his cause.

Generally I think the northerners being war weary and cautious makes political sense on both sides. Karstark for example does not come across as brave and whilst as you say Stannis might potentially put a Stark in charge at WF(although it could be Sansa with the chance for someone to marry her) that's not the same as a male Stark directly leading a force. Stannis looks set to win before the weather strikes, Jon on the other hand looks set to lose and ultimately needs unexpected help from the Vale to win, makes sense he would wait on the sidelines for the former but commit to fighting the latter. The umbers as well make it clear there responding to the Wildings coming though the Wall which was not a factor at the point Stannis was asking for their alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said:

This kind of debate where I can see peoples point more, the stuff about show Stannis "burning shireen for no reason" on the other hand simply doesn't match what I saw on screen at all and comes across as having some kind of ulterior motive.

Going back to your point yeah this is definitely a shift and I can see why someone who enjoys the more complex politics of the story would consider it a bad adaptation. Again I think the prime motivation in the show was likely to have Stanniis effort to defeat the Boltons and Jon's effort to do so as two more separate plots that could unfold over a couple of seasons where as in the books these two things are I'd imagine more likely to be more interconnected. The show has IMHO always been more interested in Stannis the character than the politics around him.

Whilst there simplified I do think the shows northern politics at least make sense. For one thing of course Stannis doesn't need to push THAT hard for support in the short term, he has the Golden Company and is odds on to defeat the Boltons  if the weather doesn't strike and spending time trying to get support before attacking makes bad weather that much more likely. His logic would likely be if he does defeat the Boltons and potentially puts a Stark at winterfell then people will flock to his cause.

Generally I think the northerners being war weary and cautious makes political sense on both sides. Karstark for example does not come across as brave and whilst as you say Stannis might potentially put a Stark in charge at WF(although it could be Sansa with the chance for someone to marry her) that's not the same as a male Stark directly leading a force. Stannis looks set to win before the weather strikes, Jon on the other hand looks set to lose and ultimately needs unexpected help from the Vale to win, makes sense he would wait on the sidelines for the former but commit to fighting the latter. The umbers as well make it clear there responding to the Wildings coming though the Wall which was not a factor at the point Stannis was asking for their alliance.

The problem I have with the "North is war tired" argument is that Roose and Ramsay through S4-S5 kept foreshadowing a North uprising against them and at no point in Jon's tour were we given a "we're just tired" argument. On top of that having the North be worn down makes Roose's decision to marry Ramsay to Sansa make less sense as he did himself more harm than good having the Northerns joining Stannis makes his decision to screw over the Lannisters a bit more understandable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

The problem I have with the "North is war tired" argument is that Roose and Ramsay through S4-S5 kept foreshadowing a North uprising against them and at no point in Jon's tour were we given a "we're just tired" argument. On top of that having the North be worn down makes Roose's decision to marry Ramsay to Sansa make less sense as he did himself more harm than good having the Northerns joining Stannis makes his decision to screw over the Lannisters a bit more understandable 

Roose's comments to me always seemed to be played more that they were on their own in terms of holding the north rather than that every house was likely to wise up against them in the near future. The big advantage of Sansa was surely producing a Stark/Bolton heir that could have been looked on more favourably by the north and indeed would be the legitimate heir if Brann/Rickson do not resurface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said:

Roose's comments to me always seemed to be played more that they were on their own in terms of holding the north rather than that every house was likely to wise up against them in the near future. The big advantage of Sansa was surely producing a Stark/Bolton heir that could have been looked on more favourably by the north and indeed would be the legitimate heir if Brann/Rickson do not resurface.

I'm sorry but I don't see "producing a Stark/Bolton heir that could have been looked on more favourably by the north" worth pissing off the crown which again is an important point in the books Jenye was just "silk dress" to "legitimatize" his new rule that the crown knew step by step was gonna go down while Roose real power came through the threat of killing hostages in the Twins and the might of the crown backing him. So cutting that out and making this marriage be the hopes of where his power will come from while pissing off the crown just looks foolish on Roose's part and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole on D&D's part 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

I'm sorry but I don't see "producing a Stark/Bolton heir that could have been looked on more favourably by the north" worth pissing off the crown which again is an important point in the books Jenye was just "silk dress" to "legitimatize" his new rule that the crown knew step by step was gonna go down while Roose real power came through the threat of killing hostages in the Twins and the might of the crown backing him. So cutting that out and making this marriage be the hopes of where his power will come from while pissing off the crown just looks foolish on Roose's part and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole on D&D's part 

Tywins death of course changes the situation as that both removes Roose's direct ally and the most potent military/political leader who could either aid or oppose him. Even prior to that though I think the show plays down the actual aid the Bolton's might expect exactly so that Ramsay marrying Sansa makes more political sense, the Boltons rule more because there the most powerful remaning force in the north.

The show definitely tends to put its characters before its politics compared to the books but honestly I think it does a decent job of the latter the vast majority of the time, little stands out to me as distractingly illogical even if its often lacking the same detail or subtlety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said:

The show definitely tends to put its characters before its politics...

That, more or less, is quite the damnation of the politics in GoT, as the show runners have a tendency to completely butcher all of the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

Tywins death of course changes the situation as that both removes Roose's direct ally and the most potent military/political leader who could either aid or oppose him. Even prior to that though I think the show plays down the actual aid the Bolton's might expect exactly so that Ramsay marrying Sansa makes more political sense, the Boltons rule more because there the most powerful remaning force in the north.

The show definitely tends to put its characters before its politics compared to the books but honestly I think it does a decent job of the latter the vast majority of the time, little stands out to me as distractingly illogical even if its often lacking the same detail or subtlety.

Yeah, I love the show, but if I had my way they would have followed the books much more closely, like they did in Season 1.

I would have only added scenes that were consistent with the books, not contrary to them.  (E.g., stuff like Robert's hunt and Robert and Cersei's conversation in Season 1 were consistent with the books, but not in the books.  Things could have happened like that, GRRM just didn't choose to tell us about them.  Once the show starts to contradict the books, though, I have much more of a problem.  To me, it's almost like the showrunners are saying they can tell the story better than GRRM, to which I say: "Uh, no you can't.") 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Cron said:

Yeah, I love the show, but if I had my way they would have followed the books much more closely, like they did in Season 1.

I would have only added scenes that were consistent with the books, not contrary to them.  (E.g., stuff like Robert's hunt and Robert and Cersei's conversation in Season 1 were consistent with the books, but not in the books.  Things could have happened like that, GRRM just didn't choose to tell us about them.  Once the show starts to contradict the books, though, I have much more of a problem.  To me, it's almost like the showrunners are saying they can tell the story better than GRRM, to which I say: "Uh, no you can't.") 

Honestly I think that's the mind-set that sets you up not to enjoy an adaptation, that any change must somehow be a criticism of the original work.

In this case I think the first season/book is definitely the easiest to adapt relatively straight, your dealing with a considerably less complex narrative at that point.

Personal opinion as well but I think theres also more of a danger in a TV series outstaying its welcome than there is with a series of books, I think theres likely to be the material there that D&D could have produced 10 seasons or more but would things have remained as fresh during that time?

I can think of a lot of exellent show that very clearly peaked well before they actually ended, often for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said:

Honestly I think that's the mind-set that sets you up not to enjoy an adaptation, that any change must somehow be a criticism of the original work.

In this case I think the first season/book is definitely the easiest to adapt relatively straight, your dealing with a considerably less complex narrative at that point.

Personal opinion as well but I think theres also more of a danger in a TV series outstaying its welcome than there is with a series of books, I think theres likely to be the material there that D&D could have produced 10 seasons or more but would things have remained as fresh during that time?

I can think of a lot of exellent show that very clearly peaked well before they actually ended, often for that reason.

It's not that it's different, it's that what they do is unsuccessful, and often times so stupid I can't see how they thought it would be successful.  I actually am a fan of trying to get Sansa North in a shortened version of the story.  I think condensing Arya's training is a good idea if you're shortening the overall story.  I think cutting/streamlining Dorne is a good idea.  Getting rid of Tyrion's long discovery that he doesn't want to die, and going through rock bottom was a good idea in a shortened format.

However, in all of those cases, what they actually gave us was horrendous. 

You have dumb things like Sansa choosing to marry and provide legitimacy to the family that betrayed hers, and Littlefinger giving up one of the most valuable political pawn in the world because of reasons! You have a whole lot of Arya getting hit by a stick, before suddenly learning in a montage (the entire first half of her season 6 story, without getting into the stupidity of the final act). We get Tyrion drinking games, trying to get people to do something they are already doing (red priests), and otherwise just being in awkward scenes trying to get people who don't drink to drink, while all of Mereen's problems just disappear until they don't.  Dorne is..... let's leave it at that. 

I don't need to see Sansa learning politics in the Vale.  Have her going house to house, trying to raise the North against the Boltons (possibly even being discovered and kidnapped by the Boltons to force her into that version of the plotline) works for me. Their alternative storyline doesn't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

Honestly I think that's the mind-set that sets you up not to enjoy an adaptation, that any change must somehow be a criticism of the original work.

In this case I think the first season/book is definitely the easiest to adapt relatively straight, your dealing with a considerably less complex narrative at that point.

Personal opinion as well but I think theres also more of a danger in a TV series outstaying its welcome than there is with a series of books, I think theres likely to be the material there that D&D could have produced 10 seasons or more but would things have remained as fresh during that time?

I can think of a lot of exellent show that very clearly peaked well before they actually ended, often for that reason.

Well, I believe I have a very positive view of the show.  I've said many times it's the best t.v. show I've ever seen, and in my mind I tend to keep the show and the books separate and distinct (as I believe GRRM basically said, "the show is the show, and the books are the books")

So I don't think I've set myself up to not enjoy an adaptation; in fact I enjoy it a great deal.  I know "super-purists," ESPECIALLY when it comes to comic book movies, and I'm not one of them.

BUT...do I believe D&D can tell the story better than GRRM?  No.  I believe if they could, THEY WOULD.  They are free to go write their own books, create their own universe(s), and make about $25 million/year (last I heard about GRRM) with mutliple New York Times bestsellers, same as GRRM...but they don't.  Why?  In my opinion, it's cuz they CAN'T, but they are welcome to prove me wrong any time they want.

I LOVE the show, best show ever...but is it better than the books?  No, not to me.  Hence, my opinion that they should have just followed the books, and supplemented what is there, rather than contradicting it

(I'm on record stating that I believe there ARE some things the show does better than the books, but overall the books are better.  I do NOT hate all the changes, as a "super-purist" would.  But overall...I'll take GRRM.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

I can think of a lot of exellent show that very clearly peaked well before they actually ended, often for that reason.

We can add GoT to that list, I'm afraid. Although the reason is not outstaying it's welcome, the quality of the story simply declined in favor of cheap shocks and action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rhollo said:

We can add GoT to that list, I'm afraid. Although the reason is not outstaying it's welcome, the quality of the story simply declined in favor of cheap shocks and action.

Well, the current series is already scheduled to end anyway after two more seasons, of course, which only have 13 more episodes total (7 episodes in Season 7, and 6 episodes in Season 8), but it's not b/c of ratings (far as I know, the ratings are as strong as ever).

Rumor is that we'll be getting a spin-off when this current series ends, though.  Who knows, maybe they'll learn from some of the things they did that were unpopular.  I hope a spin-off focuses heavily on the younger cast (who are cheaper for budget purposes anyway, as I strongly understand it; I've heard the five most expensive actors, all tied in "money per episode," are Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Dany and Jon), with some of the older characters who survive the current run appearing less often and/or being limited to cameos. (Or, of course, they might do something completely different for a spin-off)

I DON'T believe GOT is done, though, or will end in two years.  My understanding is that it is, in fact, still HBO's highest rated show, and of course the show just broke an Emmy record recently (I have a thread on it in this sub-forum with details, if you're interested).  I confidently predict HBO won't just walk away from that audience, they'll dish up something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Rumor is that we'll be getting a spin-off when this current series ends, though.  Who knows, maybe they'll learn from some of the things they did that were unpopular.  I hope a spin-off focuses heavily on the younger cast (who are cheaper for budget purposes anyway, as I strongly understand it; I've heard the five most expensive actors, all tied in "money per episode," are Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Dany and Jon), with some of the older characters who survive the current run appearing less often and/or being limited to cameos. (Or, of course, they might do something completely different for a spin-off)

Probably we would see the Robert's rebellion as prequel? Though such series could be interesting mostly for GoT fans.

I would love to see D&E mini-series too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...