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

[Ashes Of Westeros]

16 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

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 agree. I think the problem is the on/screen format. Cat in her POVs is an observer, she gives us an insight and some foreshadowing of the upcoming events through her thoughts and intuition. The same applies to Sansa's POVs especially in the beginning. Cat never strived to be a leader, to make decisions and execute them. She has a supproting role, but it is really important. If we take The Godfather analogy she is kind of Tom Hagen. Cat gives a council and comfort and she acts activly as diplomat. The problem I see is that this role is diffecult to depict on screen as far as we get less thoughts of the character and we mostly judge them on their actions. This is the reason why the showmakers changed Sansa's arc and character, IMHO.

PS. The Godfather book is better than movie, though the movie is a masterpiece.

[JonSnow4President]

2 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

I agree. I think the problem is the on/screen format. Cat in her POVs is an observer, she gives us an insight and some foreshadowing of the upcoming events through her thoughts and intuition. The same applies to Sansa's POVs especially in the beginning. Cat never strived to be a leader, to make decisions and execute them. She has a supproting role, but it is really important. If we take The Godfather analogy she is kind of Tom Hagen. Cat gives a council and comfort and she acts activly as diplomat. The problem I see is that this role is diffecult to depict on screen as far as we get less thoughts of the character and we mostly judge them on their actions. This is the reason why the showmakers changed Sansa's arc and character, IMHO.

PS. The Godfather book is better than movie, though the movie is a masterpiece.

Catelyn is an actor, not just an observer.  She advises Robb (cut because of age-up and focus on Robb) multiple times, puts forth her own alternative in peace/war discussions (cut), and represents Robb in the meeting at Storm's End (as a much more active participant than the show).  Even getting rid of her thoughts completely (which they did, and shows that they do not have a particularly good grasp of translating some of that to a visual medium), they get rid of her external actions as well, which are perfectly at home in television.  

[dsug]

I like Cat book and show equally. There are differences, but she's the same character. But while Cat sometimes lacked a lot of charisma for lack of a better word in the books, Michelle Fairley just has such a presence that you can't help but listen when she speaks. 

[Ashes Of Westeros]

21 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Catelyn is an actor, not just an observer.  She advises Robb (cut because of age-up and focus on Robb) multiple times, puts forth her own alternative in peace/war discussions (cut), and represents Robb in the meeting at Storm's End (as a much more active participant than the show).  Even getting rid of her thoughts completely (which they did, and shows that they do not have a particularly good grasp of translating some of that to a visual medium), they get rid of her external actions as well, which are perfectly at home in television.  

I agree. But still I think that Michelle Fairley did a great job with the material given to her and he monologue about Jon Snow is one of the best things in the show.

 

[JonSnow4President]

1 hour ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

I agree. But still I think that Michelle Fairley did a great job with the material given to her and he monologue about Jon Snow is one of the best things in the show.

 

Oh, please not the "let's completely ignore the setting we're using in this scene, but we're going to totally come back and use that setting as our excuse for other unpleasant scenes later"- scene.

ETA:  She acts the scene so well.  But the words coming out of her mouth are the problem.  I have nothing against Fairley, who did do a phenomenal job.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

10 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Oh, please not the "let's completely ignore the setting we're using in this scene, but we're going to totally come back and use that setting as our excuse for other unpleasant scenes later"- scene.

ETA:  She acts the scene so well.  But the words coming out of her mouth are the problem.  I have nothing against Fairley, who did do a phenomenal job.

What's the problem with it? Yeah, the showCat had more reflections towards Jon than the bookCat but I think this monologue isn't out of her character. Motherhood is a corner stone of Cat's self-identification, but she can't force herself to become Jon's mother no matter what.

[JonSnow4President]

Just now, Ashes Of Westeros said:

What's the problem with it? Yeah, the showCat had more reflections towards Jon than the bookCat but I think this monologue isn't out of her character. Motherhood is a corner stone of Cat's self-identification, but she can't force herself to become Jon's mother no matter what.

"All because I couldn't love a symbol that has a good chance of destabilizing my children's reign, causing them danger in their immediate future, or in their descendant's future." While it's perfectly understandable from a human standpoint, Ned's bringing Jon home before his Southron wife is accidentally creating an important symbol that could be used by opportunistic bannerman to overthrow Robb (or his descendants) in the future.  Remember, Catelyn worships foreign gods, which Ned builds Winterfell's first Sept for her, and Jon Snow is the only child besides Arya that is supposed to look like Ned, which can easily be used as an argument against Robb's legitimacy as a Northman.

The problem is not necessarily what Jon Snow does or will do.  It's what other people can do using Jon Snow (or his descendants).  It's a testament to the strength of Ned and Robb that it is actually never an issue.

That's without getting into the personal issues she may be dealing with (doesn't really fault him for it in the books) of him sleeping with another woman.  

Now, like I said.  She acted the ever-loving shit out of that scene.  From an acting standpoint, it's in my top 5 for sure.  But I hate the actual scene because of how nonsensical it is in a feudal setting (which you'll notice is what they love to point to when they do something distasteful).    

[David Selig]

20 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

What's the problem with it? Yeah, the showCat had more reflections towards Jon than the bookCat but I think this monologue isn't out of her character. Motherhood is a corner stone of Cat's self-identification, but she can't force herself to become Jon's mother no matter what.

It is an idiotic monologue written by people who clearly had no clue had a noblewoman would think and act in such a setting. Of course she can't force herself to become Jon's mother. But in the Westeros society it makes no sense whatsoever for a noblewoman in her position, especially one who is all about duty and family, to even consider it, let alone try it and to feel guilty for failing. Bastards are threat to her children and to her duty to them and House Tully. And the whole bit about her vowing to ask Ned to legitimise Jon is completely nonsensical.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

@JonSnow4President I see your point. In feudal society such way of thinking would be impossible, as any person was judged and identified by his birth. But for modern Western viewer such logic is a bullshit and nothing more than a sign of arrogance and it would make a character really unlikeble. In the show Cat's feelings towards Jon put in a different context, a context of personal emotions, more understandble for modern viewers. In the books she sees him as a threat to her children, in the books - he reminds her of Ned's apparent infidelity. But in the end she can't love Jon all the same, though she should, because he's just a motherless child and it's not his fault.

I read several boards about ASOIAF and GOT and I saw that many people can't get why the NW vows are such a big deal or being a bastard. Because they live in different social and cultural context. It's fine. Acient Romans wouldn't understand our lifestyle and moral either. The show is made for even much broader international audence than the books, so the feudal society is more a setting here. As a showmaker you can't expect viewers to read tonns of literature to understand the way of character's thinking, you have to put it in a convinient context.

[Wall Flower]

32 minutes ago, David Selig said:

It is an idiotic monologue written by people who clearly had no clue had a noblewoman would think and act in such a setting. Of course she can't force herself to become Jon's mother. But in the Westeros society it makes no sense whatsoever for a noblewoman in her position, especially one who is all about duty and family, to even consider it, let alone try it and to feel guilty for failing. Bastards are threat to her children and to her duty to them and House Tully. And the whole bit about her vowing to ask Ned to legitimise Jon is completely nonsensical.

Yeah, I rather object to the way that the writers tried to 'fix' Cat to make her more sympathetic and to fit her more firmly into the maternal role rather than being the great noble lady she is in the books. It seems to be an unpopular opinion but I feel the same way about show Cersei whose rage and ambition was toned down to make her more sympathetic and relatable (and less of an actual villain) at least until the last episodes of the latest season.

[David Selig]

8 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Yeah, I rather object to the way that the writers tried to 'fix' Cat to make her more sympathetic and to fit her more firmly into the maternal role rather than being the great noble lady she is in the books.

I never got how a scene where Cat admitted she prayed for a baby to die because she was jealous of his mother was supposed to make her more sympathetic. But apparently it worked as intended for most viewers

[Ruhail]

That scene would be the equivilent of Cersei saying shes a horrible person who deserves it because her jealously, ambition and rage wrt Tyrion as she wanted him to die for killing their mother.

[JonSnow4President]

26 minutes ago, Ruhail said:

That scene would be the equivilent of Cersei saying shes a horrible person who deserves it because her jealously, ambition and rage wrt Tyrion as she wanted him to die for killing their mother.

Except that would be scene as illogical even in that setting, so it's actually worse than Cersei doing so.  

The biggest complaint with the setting of it is they are constantly choosing to defend things, like Sansa getting raped (and potentially genitally mutilated), Gilly being assaulted, etc as "that's just the way it was back then."  But then, they go away from "how it was back then" when it's convenient and fits what they want to show. 

The better monologue IMO would be Catelyn explaining to Talisa, a fellow non-Northerner who is about to be trying to birth some non-Northern looking babies (who are maybe Seven worshipper as well, since Robb and Talisa are married by a Septon), what Ned had done with Jon, and how it threatened her politically.  How she is going to need to embrace the Northern way of doing things because of her inherent non-Northerness. There's a lot of pent-up emotions in those issues, and Fairley could act the shit out of them while still being consistent with the setting, and relatable to the audience.  

It's the writer's job to make those emotions understandable, and even if we don't agree with why they do it, at least be able to understand why they did so.  While I despise Catelyn's treatment of Jon Snow as a 21st century human being, I can perfectly understand why she behaved like she did.  It doesn't require a 15th century mindset.  

[Dragon in the North]

5 hours ago, David Selig said:

I never got how a scene where Cat admitted she prayed for a baby to die because she was jealous of his mother was supposed to make her more sympathetic. But apparently it worked as intended for most viewers

It's because Show Cat actually showed remorse for her treatment of Jon, which is something Book Cat never did.

[David Selig]

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

It's because Show Cat actually showed remorse for her treatment of Jon, which is something Book Cat never did.

Most viewers have not read the books so that is not the reason.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

9 hours ago, Ruhail said:

That scene would be the equivilent of Cersei saying shes a horrible person who deserves it because her jealously, ambition and rage wrt Tyrion as she wanted him to die for killing their mother.

Well, Cersei actually said almost the same in a scene with Tyrion in s2. She admited her struggles controlling Joffrey and openly speaks her relationship with Jaime. She confides her fear that Joffrey's behavior is the price for her sins, including incest.

I actually prefer showCersei to bookCersei, because she's more complex, while in the books she's sometimes caricature.

The same thing with Shae. The show Shae is more interesting than in the books, but the end of her storyline makes absolutely no sense. It's like D&D first decided to rewrite the character but later remembered they had the books to stuck to and just squeezed a totaly different character in the book's arc.

[Rhollo]

33 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Well, Cersei actually said almost the same in a scene with Tyrion in s2. She admited her struggles controlling Joffrey and openly speaks her relationship with Jaime. She confides her fear that Joffrey's behavior is the price for her sins, including incest.

I actually prefer showCersei to bookCersei, because she's more complex, while in the books she's sometimes caricature.

The same thing with Shae. The show Shae is more interesting than in the books, but the end of her storyline makes absolutely no sense. It's like D&D first decided to rewrite the character but later remembered they had the books to stuck to and just squeezed a totaly different character in the book's arc.

That's the thing. What makes the show versions seem more interesting and complex is often actually just a lack of consistency.

Take the HS for example: He seemed like a more nuanced character compared to the quite straightforward zealot of the book.

But really, this nuance just was erratic behaviour, because we are never shown/told his true motivations or plans and are never going to. All we saw is a man who came to KL one day and fucked shit up for the royal family. And that he is "a lot more ..." of something.

Of course, we can come up with all kinds of very clever theories about his background and what his endgame would have been if Cersei hadn't blown up the sept. But leaving A LOT of room (and need) for speculation does not make a well drawn, complex character. Quite the opposite.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

32 minutes ago, Rhollo said:

Take the HS for example: He seemed like a more nuanced character compared to the quite straightforward zealot of the book.

The HS had a huge potential and they just screwed him up spectacularly. I don't see any logic behind this (if only the guy did wanted to leave the project like Natalie).

[Opercer]

 

Quote

The same thing with Shae. The show Shae is more interesting than in the books, but the end of her storyline makes absolutely no sense. It's like D&D first decided to rewrite the character but later remembered they had the books to stuck to and just squeezed a totaly different character in the book's arc.

I still can't get over tysha,the only reason I waited for S4 was because of her and the show simply ignored her. I guess she doesn't play an important role...sadly

[MrsStocksey]

I've just jumped back in to read the last few pages of this thread and it's a shame that what I assume was supposed to be quite a positive thread about the show has once again become a lot of negativity....

Personally I think the show has done lots better than the books, particularly the last 2 books which were overlong and rather dull in places.  I've just reread them all and accidently started reading a Dance with Dragons, Part 2, first (because I'm an idiot) but actually it made no difference to the story....I just missed a lot of floundering around.

I prefer quite a few of the characters in the show.... (the first ones that come to mind)

Cersei, Jorah, Robb, Talisa, Margaery, Gendry...

I also prefer Hardhome in the shows, Sansa's storyline (although an unpopular choice), Brienne's journey (a lot less wandering around!)

I think the battles have been visually stunning, whilst I realise that isn't something the books can do other than in your own imagination, the show has done a marvellous job showing them to their full potential.

I think it's one of the best shows on telly and I think D&D should be commended for bring it to our screen, especially considering the amount of s**t they get from some corners of the internet, it's not a job I'd want to attempt.  The shows not perfect but then neither are the books.