Jump to content

Archived

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

Cron

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

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Of course, it's very different. And in the books as well, Ramsay knows he's hurting Jeyne, he knows he is raping her. And many people inside Winterfell are upset because of his actions. Rape as a crime is recognized in the setting, and Martin is very clear on what is a rape and what isn't in that setting. That's why I'm so puzzled when people start making things up, like "Drogo raped Dany in the books too". And then they go even further and start accusing Martin of writing rape unintentionally. But honestly, I'm not sure they really mean that. I think they're just trying to blame Martin for show's stupidity. Because if they really thought Martin wrote and effectively promoted rape unintentionally, they probably wouldn't read the books after that. Why would anyone read something that promotes rape, even unintentionally? I know I wouldn't! So I really think it's just a way for show-lovers to defend the show at all costs, and not the reflection of their true feelings and opinions.

Yes. And Ramsay on the show locked up Sansa Stark. He didn't let her out and continued to abuse her, as she tells Littlefinger in Episode 5, "The Door."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nK-WPx01Xk

Why the show didn't have others in Winterfell recognize this is a glaring omission. They should have addressed this. Brienne lets Littlefinger walk around after hearing what he did to Sansa. So does Jon. It's once again the loophole the show has allowed itself to justify Sansa going to Winterfell in Jeyne Poole's place. It's idiotic and makes no sense.

And it's irresponsible on the show's part to have a major character like Sansa Stark abused in this manner and then to think that showing her having her abuser killed by dogs, smirking about it, is a prudent decision. Having her say it will all be forgotten. Sure, that's what the showrunners want to have happen, for it all to go away. However, they made a poor decision to not have her rapes and abuse addressed in a rational, truly cathartic way.

Sansa likely will be a killer one day. But Ramsay Bolton is not going to be on her 'list.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StepStark said:

It's impossible not to confuse the two at least sometimes, especially if you watched the show or parts of it before you read the books. I read the books years before the show, and I still confuse some things between the two. And honestly, that's my biggest gripe with the show, that they're messing with the reading experience. You can't enjoy the books alone any more, because you're constantly surrounded by the show and the buzz. Of course, that is not D&D's fault but the nature of TV business, but their fault is the inferior story they're putting on the screen. Their incompetence and TV business' influence make for a powerful combination, and sadly it's very damaging.

Of course, it's very different. And in the books as well, Ramsay knows he's hurting Jeyne, he knows he is raping her. And many people inside Winterfell are upset because of his actions. Rape as a crime is recognized in the setting, and Martin is very clear on what is a rape and what isn't in that setting. That's why I'm so puzzled when people start making things up, like "Drogo raped Dany in the books too". And then they go even further and start accusing Martin of writing rape unintentionally. But honestly, I'm not sure they really mean that. I think they're just trying to blame Martin for show's stupidity. Because if they really thought Martin wrote and effectively promoted rape unintentionally, they probably wouldn't read the books after that. Why would anyone read something that promotes rape, even unintentionally? I know I wouldn't! So I really think it's just a way for show-lovers to defend the show at all costs, and not the reflection of their true feelings and opinions.

I agree and while you are talking about Dany and Drogo. I watched season 1 and then read the all books before season 2 aired. Due to the fact that Dany's wedding night was clearly portrayed as rape in the show I was never able to like Drogo. Like some other people here I read their first night as consensual, but thought that he raped her later and I think this is becaused the show messed up with my reading a bit. However, I still think Martin could have been a bit clearer. Instead of just writing that the sex was painful for her he could have written something like "she tried to enjoy it, but it hurt too much". I also think that Martin would probably write the scenes differently today, because society has become far more sensible about the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Le Cygne said:

Agreed.

Drogo doesn't know he is hurting Dany. Ramsay knows he is hurting Sansa. These are very different stories.

Also with Dany and Drogo, there's a love story the author is telling, and it begins well before the wedding night. As the author explains, there's a lot going on between them in the scenes leading up to the wedding night scene (a scene that he describes as consensual, sexy and romantic). Lots of symbolism...

On the wedding night, Drogo places Dany up on a rock so they are on the same level, that's about equality. She watches him, then reaches out to take off his bells, to undress him, signaling her desire. There's quite a lot going on there, and he is a big part of it, this is about realizing her potential...

And then she develops painful saddle sores. She is having a hard time getting used to riding, she is resisting her inner dragon (the conflict with Viserys). She has the dragon dreams, and when she embraces the dragon (her true self) she let the silver teach her how to ride, and then she rides Drogo like she rode her silver...

And then she rides Drogon. From Drogo comes Drogon....

:agree::agree::agree: 

Daenerys and Drogo is a love story, it will never not be a love story. 

And it is just bafflingly stupid to put medieval fantasy events into modern context and judge them according to 21st century laws and customs of one part of the world. I mean why don't go ahead and judge ourselves by asoiaf standards? It's not going to be satisfying, I should have had at least 3 kids already instead of wasting my life at university, I'm basically a size XS spinster Frey daughter, just how terribly unfortunate is that? While by 2016 standards, I'm just alright. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

I agree and while you are talking about Dany and Drogo. I watched season 1 and then read the all books before season 2 aired. Due to the fact that Dany's wedding night was clearly portrayed as rape in the show I was never able to like Drogo. Like some other people here I read their first night as consensual, but thought that he raped her later and I think this is becaused the show messed up with my reading a bit. However, I still think Martin could have been a bit clearer. Instead of just writing that the sex was painful for her he could have written something like "she tried to enjoy it, but it hurt too much". I also think that Martin would probably write the scenes differently today, because society has become far more sensible about the topic. 

I also think the show influenced me on thinking "is Drogo raping her now or not?" Because of the show.

however I also agree that the way the paragraph is written is a little confusing and would havw preferrered it to be clearer, especially for those who had the mental image of the show where we don't know about what Dany is feeling. And especially the contrast between the two chapters....

However without watching the show the first chapter would have prevailed, as it did yesterday when re reading consciously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

Well to each their own :) 

I think that book-adaptations should not deviate too much from the books they are based on. 

However, even when I judge the show on its on merits it don't really like it anymore. 

I think season 6 and to some extent also season 5 have only focused on two things:

1. Shocking/ epic moments

2. Death

However, when I started the show I loved it because of the characters and the intelligent story the show was telling. While I liked episodes such as "Blackwater" or "The Rains of Castamere", the shocking moments weren't the most important parts of the show for me. I liked the discussions about power between Varys, Littlefinger and Tyrion about the nature of power. I liked the scene between Cersei and Robert, because it was a good character moment. Scenes like these is something that has been completely absent from season 6. Here are examples of things I would have liked to see in Season 6: 

- Learning to ride and controll a dragon was supposed to be an important moment for Daenerys which also had something to do with her imbracing her Targaryen heritage, but in the show she just suddenly managed to do so and we never saw what it meant to her. Similarly, going back to the Dothraki should not have been about her gaining an even bigger army, but about her going back to her past.

- The show completely swepped Jon's ressurection under a rug and it was barely mentioned. While I think that he was changed he seemed to be back to his old self in episode 10. Despite the fact that ressurections are supposed to lead to permanent changes in a character.I really don't like how they dealt with it. It seems like the only reason why Jon was dead, was for having a cliffhanger. 

- Bran only seems to serve as an exposition machine now. I can tell what kind of magical powers we has, but I cannot name you any of his character traits. I would have liked to see more of his personality. 

I think the the show is extremely good when it comes to things like special effects, music, acting and costumes, but one thing was extremely bad during the last two seasons and that was the writing. I think the Emmys in that category were completely undeserved. Due to the focus the show has put on shocking moments other things were lacking and these were:

- Logic: There is a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense and wouldn't make sense in any other show either. An army with 20.000 men manages to cross hundreds of kilometers and conquers a castle (Moat Cailin) without anyone noticing and informing the Warden of the North? Arya manages to run, jump and fight only 2 or 3 days after having been stabbed into the stomach repeatedly? Furthermore, the show doesn't have internal logic anymore. Tyrion tells Theon that Theon was making jokes about his height when they first met, but when you go back to Season 1 Episode 2 you will see that it was actually the other way round Tyrion was making jokes about Theon. The faith wants to abolish Trial by combat, but it has been previously established that trial by combat is a sort of religious trial. What did Tyrion say Season 4 Episde 6 when he demanded trial by combat? "I will let the gods decide my fate."

- Characters: Sometimes the behaviour makes absolutely no sense at all and some characters seem to change their behaviour from episode to episode. For me it feels like characters behave in a certain way, because they know that they a characters in a TV series which needs shocking moment. 

I do not agree with most of Preson Jacob's theories, but he has made a good video about season 6 where he analyses the different characters and the different storylines. He shows that most storylines make no sense at all and that the behaviour of a lot of characters goes against how they have been characterised it past seasons. 

I'm a writer myself so I probably have a bit higher standards in terms of writing than other people do, but the last seasons have repeatedly violated some basic rules of writing:

- The plot follows the characters. In this show it is actually the other way round the characters follow the plot and they always behave in a way that is necessary in order to advance the plot or in order to achieve the next epic moment. 

- Actions have consequences: We have so many shocking moments and so many character deaths, but we never see the consequences of these acts. Hodor dies and the next time we see Bran it doesn't seem to matter even more. Bran doesn't even say something like "Hodor died for us". 

For me season 6 felt like writers were just crossing things on their checklist: Jon ressurrected: Check. Arya left the FM: Check. Hodor sacrificed himself for Bran and Meera: Check. Dany leaves Meereen; Check. 

The consequences of these actions were never really explored and the ways in which some of these things came to pass (Arya leaving the FM) were highly illogical. 

For me the show is now similar to badly written action movie. You know these movies that have a good cast, nice effects and cool-looking action scenes, but stories that make no sense. The kind of movies that you can only watch when you turn your brain off. I don't have something against these movies per se and I senjoy to watch them occasionally, but I didn't start watching GoT because I wanted to see such a movie. 

I don't understand why D&D try to compete with GRRM either. It's a competition they cannot win. GRRM has several years to write his books while they write their scripts in a few months. If they try to come up with better stuff than GRRM did in that short amount of time it will obviously not be better. That's why I don't understand why the showrunners have changed so much. 

 

Back to the original topic: I re-read a few scenes in ASOS yesterday and I found another small thing that was better in the show than in the books: The reason which Jon gives to Mance for wanting to join the wildlings: "I want to fight for the side that fights for the living" is a better explanation than "did you see where they put the bastard."

I completely agree with you on your analysis of what the show's goals are nowadays. you used great examples to picture what is hapenning.

but I don't think it's a matter of beung a writer or not. I am not a writer and I see those flaws. I also know people who have not read the books and say the story doesn't make sense like it used to be.

It's all about shocking moments and killing characterd without consequences......

as you said: check!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Karmarni said:

Yes. And Ramsay on the show locked up Sansa Stark. He didn't let her out and continued to abuse her, as she tells Littlefinger in Episode 5, "The Door."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nK-WPx01Xk

Why the show didn't have others in Winterfell recognize this is a glaring omission. They should have addressed this. Brienne lets Littlefinger walk around after hearing what he did to Sansa. So does Jon. It's once again the loophole the show has allowed itself to justify Sansa going to Winterfell in Jeyne Poole's place. It's idiotic and makes no sense.

And it's irresponsible on the show's part to have a major character like Sansa Stark abused in this manner and then to think that showing her having her abuser killed by dogs, smirking about it, is a prudent decision. Having her say it will all be forgotten. Sure, that's what the showrunners want to have happen, for it all to go away. However, they made a poor decision to not have her rapes and abuse addressed in a rational, truly cathartic way.

Sansa likely will be a killer one day. But Ramsay Bolton is not going to be on her 'list.'

And this is one of the many reasons why I consider giving Sansa the Jeyne Poole role to be the worst change from the source material that the show has ever made. 

Some reviewers praised the portrail of Sansa this season and said that it was good to see her as empowered after the rape, but I consider it to be a really bad and unrealistic portrail of the subject matter. It's the rape = empowerment troope and this is one of the worst ways in which rape can be portrayed. While each person deals differently with trauma I think that the way in which Sansa acted this season completely goes against the ways in which most rape survivors act. Most survivors have completely lost their self-confidence afterwards and it takes monthd or years to regain that. Having Sansa act so confident was rather unrealistic. Furthermore, Sansa didn't seem to be bothered at all that she was surrounded first by members of the NW (many of them got to the wall in the first place, because they raped someone) and later by wildlings (who are known for raping and pillaging). They should have shown her terrified or at least a bit uncomfortable around these people, because quite a few rape survivors feel really uncomfortable around men during the first few weeks or months after the rape. And yes her trauma should not go away by killing ramsay, but this season has been so focussed on revenge and it has portrayed revenge as something good, that will heal your trauma or make you satisfied. Which is the complete opposite of how revenge is portrayed in the books or how it is in reality. 

It's another example that shows that the showrunners do not know how to do with the subject matter of rape properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

And this is one of the many reasons why I consider giving Sansa the Jeyne Poole role to be the worst change from the source material that the show has ever made. 

Some reviewers praised the portrail of Sansa this season and said that it was bad to see her as empowered after the rape, but I consider it to be a really bad and unrealistic portrail of the subject matter. It's the rape = empowerment troope and this is one of the worst ways in which rape can be portrayed. While each person deals differently with trauma I think that the way in which Sansa acted this season completely goes against the ways in which most rape survivors act. Most survivors have completely lost their self-confidence afterwards and it takes month or years to regain that. Having Sansa act so confident was rather unrealistic. Furthermore, Sansa didn't seem to be bothered at all that she was surrounded first by members of the NW (many of them got to the wall in the first place, because they raped someone) and later by wildlings (who are known for raping and pillaging). They should have shown her terrified or at least a bit uncomfortable around these people, because quite a few rape survivors feel really uncomfortable around men during the first few weeks or months after the rape. And yes her trauma should not go away by killing ramsay, but this season has been so focussed on revenge and it has portrayed revenge as something good, that will heal your trauma or make you satisfied. Which is the complete opposite of how revenge is portrayed in the books or how it is in reality. 

I think the deal with the trauma was poorly done too.

in the first episodes she feels really bad, like in s5 finale  and can't even cross a river with help (that part made sense).

but then when she sees WF she becomes an "empowered" woman out of a sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, StepStark said:

And you can bet your favorite body parts that you're dead wrong. Drogo never raped Dany in the books. How can anyone see that as a rape when Martin clearly wrote that Drogo has no idea he's hurting her??? You could say that it's unrealistic that Drogo doesn't realize he's hurting her. I might even agree with that. But it is obviously written that way: Dany hides her agony from Drogo. He never realized he was hurting her. It may be somewhat silly, but rape it isn't.

What are you saying? 

A rape isn't a rape if the rapist believes it isn't rape???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

What are you saying? 

A rape isn't a rape if the rapist believes it isn't rape???

What are you saying?

Consensual sex between two willing individuals is considered rape if one of the participants is secretly in pain???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Woman of War said:

What are you saying? 

A rape isn't a rape if the rapist believes it isn't rape???

Of course not. What I'm saying is that if one spouse has absolutely no idea that the other spouse was in any way hurt during their intercourse, then it cannot be rape. It's really simple, I'm not sure how did you manage to get it so wrongly.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

What are you saying?

Consensual sex between two willing individuals is considered rape if one of the participants is secretly in pain???

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

Well to each their own :) 

I think that book-adaptations should not deviate too much from the books they are based on. 

However, even when I judge the show on its on merits it don't really like it anymore. 

I think season 6 and to some extent also season 5 have only focused on two things:

1. Shocking/ epic moments

2. Death

However, when I started the show I loved it because of the characters and the intelligent story the show was telling. While I liked episodes such as "Blackwater" or "The Rains of Castamere", the shocking moments weren't the most important parts of the show for me. I liked the discussions about power between Varys, Littlefinger and Tyrion about the nature of power. I liked the scene between Cersei and Robert, because it was a good character moment. Scenes like these is something that has been completely absent from season 6. Here are examples of things I would have liked to see in Season 6: 

- Learning to ride and controll a dragon was supposed to be an important moment for Daenerys which also had something to do with her imbracing her Targaryen heritage, but in the show she just suddenly managed to do so and we never saw what it meant to her. Similarly, going back to the Dothraki should not have been about her gaining an even bigger army, but about her going back to her past.

- The show completely swepped Jon's ressurection under a rug and it was barely mentioned. While I think that he was changed he seemed to be back to his old self in episode 10. Despite the fact that ressurections are supposed to lead to permanent changes in a character.I really don't like how they dealt with it. It seems like the only reason why Jon was dead, was for having a cliffhanger. 

- Bran only seems to serve as an exposition machine now. I can tell what kind of magical powers we has, but I cannot name you any of his character traits. I would have liked to see more of his personality. 

I think the the show is extremely good when it comes to things like special effects, music, acting and costumes, but one thing was extremely bad during the last two seasons and that was the writing. I think the Emmys in that category were completely undeserved. Due to the focus the show has put on shocking moments other things were lacking and these were:

- Logic: There is a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense and wouldn't make sense in any other show either. An army with 20.000 men manages to cross hundreds of kilometers and conquers a castle (Moat Cailin) without anyone noticing and informing the Warden of the North? Arya manages to run, jump and fight only 2 or 3 days after having been stabbed into the stomach repeatedly? Furthermore, the show doesn't have internal logic anymore. Tyrion tells Theon that Theon was making jokes about his height when they first met, but when you go back to Season 1 Episode 2 you will see that it was actually the other way round Tyrion was making jokes about Theon. The faith wants to abolish Trial by combat, but it has been previously established that trial by combat is a sort of religious trial. What did Tyrion say Season 4 Episde 6 when he demanded trial by combat? "I will let the gods decide my fate."

- Characters: Sometimes the behaviour makes absolutely no sense at all and some characters seem to change their behaviour from episode to episode. For me it feels like characters behave in a certain way, because they know that they a characters in a TV series which needs shocking moment. 

I do not agree with most of Preson Jacob's theories, but he has made a good video about season 6 where he analyses the different characters and the different storylines. He shows that most storylines make no sense at all and that the behaviour of a lot of characters goes against how they have been characterised it past seasons. 

I'm a writer myself so I probably have a bit higher standards in terms of writing than other people do, but the last seasons have repeatedly violated some basic rules of writing:

- The plot follows the characters. In this show it is actually the other way round the characters follow the plot and they always behave in a way that is necessary in order to advance the plot or in order to achieve the next epic moment. 

- Actions have consequences: We have so many shocking moments and so many character deaths, but we never see the consequences of these acts. Hodor dies and the next time we see Bran it doesn't seem to matter even more. Bran doesn't even say something like "Hodor died for us". 

For me season 6 felt like writers were just crossing things on their checklist: Jon ressurrected: Check. Arya left the FM: Check. Hodor sacrificed himself for Bran and Meera: Check. Dany leaves Meereen; Check. 

The consequences of these actions were never really explored and the ways in which some of these things came to pass (Arya leaving the FM) were highly illogical. 

For me the show is now similar to badly written action movie. You know these movies that have a good cast, nice effects and cool-looking action scenes, but stories that make no sense. The kind of movies that you can only watch when you turn your brain off. I don't have something against these movies per se and I senjoy to watch them occasionally, but I didn't start watching GoT because I wanted to see such a movie. 

I don't understand why D&D try to compete with GRRM either. It's a competition they cannot win. GRRM has several years to write his books while they write their scripts in a few months. If they try to come up with better stuff than GRRM did in that short amount of time it will obviously not be better. That's why I don't understand why the showrunners have changed so much. 

 

Back to the original topic: I re-read a few scenes in ASOS yesterday and I found another small thing that was better in the show than in the books: The reason which Jon gives to Mance for wanting to join the wildlings: "I want to fight for the side that fights for the living" is a better explanation than "did you see where they put the bastard."

Well, I strongly agree with many things you wrote.

Yes, the books absolutely are crafted much more carefully, which is one reason why, as I've said, I prefer the books to the show, and if I had been the showrunner the show would have followed the books much more closely, and would only have contradicted the books as little as possible (some contradictions are necessary, for practical/financial reasons, though)

Nevertheless, I still love the show.  It's a visual feast, and again, they have done many, many things extremely well.  (Indeed, some things in the show are even better, from a storytelling point of view.  I prefer Brienne's fight with the Hound in the show to the way Arya and the Hound parted ways ni the books, for example) 

One general comment I would make about a lot of the things you dislike about Seasons 5 and 6, though, is that once they moved into uncharted territory (beyond the books) it's very hard for us to know what is canon and what isn't.    Yes, some things have been confirmed as canon, and we know some other things are not canon, but there are a lot of big question marks out there.  I was appalled when Shireen got burned in the show, and not too happy with D&D, but...turns out it's canon, as I understand it (it can't happen in the books exactly the same way, cuz the plotlines have already diverged too much, but my memory is that one of the showrunners said GRRM told them about it, meaning that it's canon; I believe it's in the showrunners' video commentary aftert that episode)

Then, of course, some things MIGHT still be plausibly explained in the show.  Example:  Arya surviving the stab wounds.   Yes, it is absolutely true that in what we call "the real world" Arya could not possibly have engaged in that chase and fight with Waif (and indeed, Arya would be lucky to even survive those stab wounds at all, even laying in a bed, without advanced medicine and treatment), but I'm still holding out hope we're going to discover Lady Crane had some magical potion(s) that made it possible in Westeros (this is not purely my imagination, I'm hoping that shot of Lady Crane reaching up high for whatever she was giving Arya is actually meaningful)

Regarding the "badly written action movie" conversation:  Yeah, I hear you.  You know what's stunning?  That some of these movies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie didn't bother to drop the relative financial peanuts it would cost for someone to write a half decent script.  And I do mean "half decent."  It wouldn't even have to be "great" to be better than a lot of what we see in movies.  Some of the writing is so bad it's astounding, and I truly believe there are probably 100 (maybe even 1,000, I dunno) people who go through this one web site we are on right now every day who could do a better job for far less money.  (indeed, my guess is that you are probably one of them, especially since you care about these things, and I believe that's the first step:  caring.)

And it's true that some elements of GOT have likely reached the "bad action movie" point (Example:  Jon surviving the Battle of the Bastards is arguably even MORE implausible than Arya doing what she did), but at some point I choose to focus on the good things they DID do right, and engage in "suspension of disbelief" on the rest.   I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and here's the single best line from any of the movies:  Qui Gon Jin telling young Anakin Skywalker "your focus determines your reality."  That's a big part of Star Wars in a nutshell, and it's a big part of GRRM's writing, too, as we are shown POV after POV that demonstrate over and over that "reality" often depends on a person's POV (which is a close paraphrase of another Star Wars line, from Obi Wan to Luke on Dagobah, after Yoda "dies," when Obi Wan tell Luke many things depend on a person's point of view.  Even more, in Episode III, when Anakin and Obi Wan are fighting, they discuss the concept yet again...Anakin tells Obi Wan from his point of view the Jedi are evil, and Obi Wan says to him "Then you are truly lost.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cron said:

And it's true that some elements of GOT have likely reached the "bad action movie" point (Example:  Jon surviving the Battle of the Bastards is arguably even MORE implausible than Arya doing what she did), but at some point I choose to focus on the good things they DID do right, and engage in "suspension of disbelief" on the rest.

Yep. And there is actually a thread about what we didn't like in the show.

I liked that the show skipped a big part of Sam's travel, his staying in Braavos and Gilly's constant weeping. They substituted it with Tarly family reunion, which was kind of clumpsy, but Sam the Badass stole the sword and liked it. I also liked that they let maester Aemon die in Castle Black where he belonged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Yep. And there is actually a thread about what we didn't like in the show.

I liked that the show skipped a big part of Sam's travel, his staying in Braavos and Gilly's constant weeping. They substituted it with Tarly family reunion, which was kind of clumpsy, but Sam the Badass stole the sword and liked it. I also liked that they let maester Aemon die in Castle Black where he belonged.

I liked the show's Horn Hill stuff, but I liked Sam and Dareon in Braavos too (indeed, that's where we learn about Tysha, the Sailor's Wife, and Tyrion's daughter, Lanna, in my strong opinion).

Yeah, if Gilly was crying a lot in the books (I forget, but I believe you) then I'm glad they chopped that out, and you raise a great point about Aemon dying at Castle Black instead of on the journey (i never thought about it before, but I think you're right that it was a better end for Aemon)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Cron: Like I said to each their own :) 

I didn't want to hijack your thread with show hate comments, you just seemed to wonder why I didn't like the show anymore and I wanted to give you an explanation which grew a bit longer than I'd expected. 

32 minutes ago, Cron said:

I liked the show's Horn Hill stuff, but I liked Sam and Dareon in Braavos too (indeed, that's where we learn about Tysha, the Sailor's Wife, and Tyrion's daughter, Lanna, in my strong opinion).

Yeah, if Gilly was crying a lot in the books (I forget, but I believe you) then I'm glad they chopped that out, and you raise a great point about Aemon dying at Castle Black instead of on the journey (i never thought about it before, but I think you're right that it was a better end for Aemon)

I liked Sam's and Gilly's voyage and their time in Braavos in the books, but I also like the show's version. Both the books and the show tell an interesting story. I think showing us Horn Hill and seeing how Randyll Tarly treated Sam helped some watchers to empathise more with Sam. He has never been a highly popular character in either medium and I saw a lot of complaints about him and his behaviour in the past, but this scene helped show-watchers to understand why Sam acts the way he acts and why he was such a craven in the first seasons. 

In the books Gilly cries so much because of the baby switch. She was nursing both her son and the son of Dalla and Mance Rayder at Castle Black, but Jon forced her to leave her son behind and take Mance's son with her. Melisandre regarded Mance Rayder as a King and she believed that King beyond the Wall was similar to being King in the Seven Kingdoms. Since Melisandre believes that there is power in King's blood, Jon feared that she would try to burn Mance Rayer's child as a sort of religios sacrifice in order to raise a dragon. He wanted to prevent this so he forced Gilly to leave her son behind and take Mance Rayder's child with her, while pretending that Mance's son was actually her's. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

@ Cron: Like I said to each their own :) 

I didn't want to hijack your thread with show hate comments, you just seemed to wonder why I didn't like the show anymore and I wanted to give you an explanation which grew a bit longer than I'd expected. 

I liked Sam's and Gilly's voyage and their time in Braavos in the books, but I also like the show's version. Both the books and the show tell an interesting story. I think showing us Horn Hill and seeing how Randyll Tarly treated Sam helped some watchers to empathise more with Sam. He has never been a highly popular character in either medium and I saw a lot of complaints about him and his behaviour in the past, but this scene helped show-watchers to understand why Sam acts the way he acts and why he was such a craven in the first seasons. 

In the books Gilly cries so much because of the baby switch. She was nursing both her son and the son of Dalla and Mance Rayder at Castle Black, but Jon forced her to leave her son behind and take Mance's son with her. Melisandre regarded Mance Rayder as a King and she believed that King beyond the Wall was similar to being King in the Seven Kingdoms. Since Melisandre believes that there is power in King's blood, Jon feared that she would try to burn Mance Rayer's child as a sort of religios sacrifice in order to raise a dragon. He wanted to prevent this so he forced Gilly to leave her son behind and take Mance Rayder's child with her, while pretending that Mance's son was actually her's. 
 

Oh, don't worry, you didn't hijack my thread at all. You mentioned something, I commented on it, we discussed it, it's cool.  This thread now has over 450 posts, and while I haven't read every single one, I've probably read most, and believe me, my strong memory is that there are plenty of comments about things people hate on the show, and they don't bother me.

Indeed, I've probably written some myself, and I don't consider them off topic here...in fact, I have a really broad definition in my mind of what is "on topic." I understand that for most people, the "love and hate" thing between show and books is a mixed bag.  I think almost nobody here is going to love (or hate) everything in the books, and almost nobody here is going to love (or hate) everything in the show, and comparing the two (good and bad) is the purpose for which I started this thread.  (Indeed, believe me, there are things about the show that I intensely dislike, too:  Number One on my list:  The way they shoehorned Sansa into Jeyne Poole's storyline.  Ugh.)

Regarding Sam:  Yeah, I liked the Horn Hill stuff a lot, but I didn't really like him taking the Valyrian sword.  He stole it, plain and simple, and I don't believe Sam would ever do that.

Regarding Gilly:  Thanks for the refresher, seriously (it's been about 5 years since I read the books).  Most of it did jog my memory, but I don't recall the stuff about being concerned Melisandre was going to try to raise a dragon.  What, did she have an egg or something?  Or was she thinking about trying to do it from dirt and dust, or what? (These are honest questions, cuz I don't recall.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cron said:

Oh, don't worry, you didn't hijack my thread at all. You mentioned something, I commented on it, we discussed it, it's cool.  This thread now has over 450 posts, and while I haven't read every single one, I've probably read most, and believe me, my strong memory is that there are plenty of comments about things people hate on the show, and they don't bother me.

Indeed, I've probably written some myself, and I don't consider them off topic here...in fact, I have a really broad definition in my mind of what is "on topic." I understand that for most people, the "love and hate" thing between show and books is a mixed bag.  I think almost nobody here is going to love (or hate) everything in the books, and almost nobody here is going to love (or hate) everything in the show, and comparing the two (good and bad) is the purpose for which I started this thread.  (Indeed, believe me, there are things about the show that I intensely dislike, too:  Number One on my list:  The way they shoehorned Sansa into Jeyne Poole's storyline.  Ugh.)

Regarding Sam:  Yeah, I liked the Horn Hill stuff a lot, but I didn't really like him taking the Valyrian sword.  He stole it, plain and simple, and I don't believe Sam would ever do that.

Regarding Gilly:  Thanks for the refresher, seriously (it's been about 5 years since I read the books).  Most of it did jog my memory, but I don't recall the stuff about being concerned Melisandre was going to try to raise a dragon.  What, did she have an egg or something?  Or was she thinking about trying to do it from dirt and dust, or what? (These are honest questions, cuz I don't recall.)

 

I agree. While I love the first four seasons there is also some stuff I don't like in these seasons and while I hate the last two seasons there are also a few scenes I enjoyed. I really disliked the Sansa/ Jeyne Poole change as well. In my eyes it was one of the worst, if not the worst, changes the show has made. 

Regarding Sam: Yes, stealing the sword is not something I see him doing in the books either, but Show!Sam is a lot more confident than Book!Sam.

Regarding Gilly: Well you know there's a lot of gossip around castle black and due to this Jon believes that Mel want's to burn Mance's son. We don't know if Mel would have actually done it. Jon just fears she would have and wants to take precautions. Most of this stuff is in Jon's second chapter in ADWD.

He says to Gilly: 

Quote

"Refuse, and the boy will burn. Not on the morrow, nor the day after...but soon, whenever Melisandre needs to wake a dragon or raise a wind or work some other spell requiring king's blood. Mance will be ash and bone by then, so she will claim his son for the fire and Stannis will not deny her. If you do not take the boy away, she will burn him."

Than we also have this conversation between Jon and Sam in Sam's first chapter in AFFC:

Quote

Sam: "Pyp says that Lady Melisandre means to give him to the flames to work some sorcery."

Jon: "Pyp should learn to hold his tongue. I have heard the same from others. King's blood, to wake a dragon. Where Melisandre thinks to find a sleeping dragon, no one is quite sure. It's nonsense. Mance's blood is no more royal than mine own. He has never worn a crown nor sat a throne. He's  a brigand, nothing more. There's  no power in brigand's blood."

We know that Mel is trying to fulfil prophecies. She believes that AA reborn will draw a burning sword from the fire and she has already created a fakeLightbringer for Stannis. Another part of the AA reborn prophecy is that he will wake dragons out of stone. If I am not mistaken both the sword and the dragon thing are also part of the Prince that was Promised prophecy, but I might be wrong here. 

We don't know for sure if Mel actually wanted to raise a dragon and how she wanted to achieve this as you pointed out she didn't have an egg, but yes there was some gossip an Mel is a religious fanatic, so who knows?

Sidenote: I believe that she will actually manage to raise a sleeping dragon in TWOW, but it will happen differently than she suspects it to happen, because the takes the prophecy to litterally. I think she will manage to raise a sleeping (death = sleeping forever) dragon (member of house Targaryen or someone with Targaryen blood) when she raises Jon from the dead. I also find it quite funny that Jon says that Mance's blood is no more royal than his own, because you can't have more royal blood that Jon has ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

I really disliked the Sansa/ Jeyne Poole change as well. In my eyes it was one of the worst, if not the worst, changes the show has made. 

I hate it too. I think that they could skip the Jayne Poole line at all. Of course, it's a part of Theon's redemptionarc but he could escape alone and do something else instead. Regarding to Theon, I don't like the character both in the books and in the show, but Alfie Allen is an awesome actor, his performance of Theon is so believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

I agree. While I love the first four seasons there is also some stuff I don't like in these seasons and while I hate the last two seasons there are also a few scenes I enjoyed. I really disliked the Sansa/ Jeyne Poole change as well. In my eyes it was one of the worst, if not the worst, changes the show has made. 

Regarding Sam: Yes, stealing the sword is not something I see him doing in the books either, but Show!Sam is a lot more confident than Book!Sam.

Regarding Gilly: Well you know there's a lot of gossip around castle black and due to this Jon believes that Mel want's to burn Mance's son. We don't know if Mel would have actually done it. Jon just fears she would have and wants to take precautions. Most of this stuff is in Jon's second chapter in ADWD.

He says to Gilly: 

Than we also have this conversation between Jon and Sam in Sam's first chapter in AFFC:

We know that Mel is trying to fulfil prophecies. She believes that AA reborn will draw a burning sword from the fire and she has already created a fakeLightbringer for Stannis. Another part of the AA reborn prophecy is that he will wake dragons out of stone. If I am not mistaken both the sword and the dragon thing are also part of the Prince that was Promised prophecy, but I might be wrong here. 

We don't know for sure if Mel actually wanted to raise a dragon and how she wanted to achieve this as you pointed out she didn't have an egg, but yes there was some gossip an Mel is a religious fanatic, so who knows?

Sidenote: I believe that she will actually manage to raise a sleeping dragon in TWOW, but it will happen differently than she suspects it to happen, because the takes the prophecy to litterally. I think she will manage to raise a sleeping (death = sleeping forever) dragon (member of house Targaryen or someone with Targaryen blood) when she raises Jon from the dead. I also find it quite funny that Jon says that Mance's blood is no more royal than his own, because you can't have more royal blood that Jon has ;)

Regarding Sam:  Interesting point about Show-Sam being more confident than Book-Sam.  I never really thought about it, but now that I do I think you're probably right.  I can't remember, was that scene in the show where Sam fights those two Night's Watch guys who were attacking Gilly (at Castle Black) even in the books?  I don't remember it in the books, but maybe some variation of it was.

Regarding Mel/Jon/dragons/king's blood:   Oh, okay, yeah, now you've jogged my memory with the "waking dragons from stone" stuff.  I, too, was thinking that the "dragon" it referred to could be a human (Targaryen) rather than a literal dragon, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might have already been fulfilled by Melisandre resurrecting Jon (probably cuz I haven't even thought about the "waking dragons" stuff for years, long before I had any inkling that Melisandre would resurrect him).  But I thought Azor Ahai was supposed to wake the dragon(s) from stone, not Melisandre (although I'm not saying you're wrong, I still think it's possible the sleeping dragon was "dead Jon" himself, and his resurrection awoke him).  Who knows, maybe GRRM is going to somehow tell us that the real source of the resurrection power is Jon himself, and Melisandre was just some sort of catalyst (I suppose the same could somehow possibly be true of Beric and Thoros, too)

Also, aren't there stone dragons at Dragonstone?  I guess at one point I was heavily focused on them, thinking they were likely the "stone dragons" in the prophecy, but maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cron said:

Regarding Sam:  Interesting point about Show-Sam being more confident than Book-Sam.  I never really thought about it, but now that I do I think you're probably right.  I can't remember, was that scene in the show where Sam fights those two Night's Watch guys who were attacking Gilly (at Castle Black) even in the books?  I don't remember it in the books, but maybe some variation of it was.

Regarding Mel/Jon/dragons/king's blood:   Oh, okay, yeah, now you've jogged my memory with the "waking dragons from stone" stuff.  I, too, was thinking that the "dragon" it referred to could be a human (Targaryen) rather than a literal dragon, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might have already been fulfilled by Melisandre resurrecting Jon (probably cuz I haven't even thought about the "waking dragons" stuff for years, long before I had any inkling that Melisandre would resurrect him).  But I thought Azor Ahai was supposed to wake the dragon(s) from stone, not Melisandre (although I'm not saying you're wrong, I still think it's possible the sleeping dragon was "dead Jon" himself, and his resurrection awoke him).  Who knows, maybe GRRM is going to somehow tell us that the real source of the resurrection power is Jon himself, and Melisandre was just some sort of catalyst (I suppose the same could somehow possibly be true of Beric and Thoros, too)

Also, aren't there stone dragons at Dragonstone?  I guess at one point I was heavily focused on them, thinking they were likely the "stone dragons" in the prophecy, but maybe not.

Regarding Sam: No, the scene with Sam, Gilly and the NW guys wasn't in the books. No NW member ever tried to rape Gilly at Castle Black. Jon send Gilly and Sam away shortly after he became LC. It's complicated to figure out the timeline between Jon's story in ADWD and Sam's story in AFFC, but Sam arrives at the citadel at the end of AFFC while Jon gets stabbed at the end of ADWD so not too much time should have passed between these two events. 

Regarding prophecies: Well I'm not an expert on prophecies and I've to refresh my memory in that area. I've been absent from the fandom for a couple of years and it has been two years since my last complete re-read (I did one of Feast and Dance last year though), so I'm not sure if any new theories have come up. I don't remember that part about Dragonstone. 

However, I remember that before ADWD came out quite a few people in the fandom were believing that Dany was the only candidate who fulfilled any of the prophecies, but after ADWD Jon became a candidate, too. I knew that it used to be a quite common belief after ADWD that GRRM would deal in one of these two ways.

1. There are several candidates who fulfil the prophecies and not one true AA.

2. AA and TPTWP are something different and people like Melisandre tend to confuse the two. So Dany could be AA, Jon TPTWP (not sure if dragons are a requirement or not) and maybe Bran the Last Hero (no dragons is this story).

That Sheireen would burn was also something that a few people on this board predicted, though no one believed that Stannis would burn her. There was a theory that Mel would burn her in order to ressurect Jon and we have examples of people with Greyscale being reffered to as "stonemen". So a dragon would be awoken out of stone. I don't have the links to these threads but you find it if you look into some of the old ADWD threats from 2011 and 2012. 

 I know that different people in Westeros and Essos had different interpretations of the prophecies and some of them even listed different requirements which a candidate has to fulfil. Rhagar said that TPTWP has a song which is the song of ice and fire, but this has not been mentioned by others like Melisandre. All this shows that the prophecy stuff is quite messy in the books. I'm not even sure if we ever got the full text of the prophecies. You have to piece a lot together by looking at what different people (like Melisandre and Maester Aemon have said). 

The show hasn't dealt with prophecies that much, but in the Tower of Joy scene in Episode 10 they showed us how Ned put Dawn next to Lyannas bed and Dawn is apparently made out of a bleeding star. 

Sorry if this is all a bit confusing, but these prophecies are sort of confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

I hate it too. I think that they could skip the Jayne Poole line at all. Of course, it's a part of Theon's redemptionarc but he could escape alone and do something else instead. Regarding to Theon, I don't like the character both in the books and in the show, but Alfie Allen is an awesome actor, his performance of Theon is so believable.

In the books Jeyne Poole relevant for the entire Northern story not just Theon's redemption arc: 

- The members of the mountain clans in Stannis's camp want Stannis to march on Winterfell in order to save "Arya".

- The northern lords in Winterfell are digusted by how Ramsay treats "Arya". Some of them might be okay with Roose, but they would never be okay with Ramsay, because his treatment of "Arya" shows them what a psychopath he is. I think there was a line like "the girl's screams could be heard throughout Winterfell." 

- It leads to tension between Roose and Ramsay: Ramsay married "Arya" in order to give the Boltons some sort of legitimacy and in order to give the northern lords a Stark and maybe keep them in line. This plan might have worked if Ramsay were a nice guy and if he had treated "Arya" properly. Instead it backfired, because of how Ramsay treats her and now there are probably even more northern Lords against the Boltons than before. I saw some people on this board theorising that Roose realised that Ramsay is not a good heir and that he is planning of killing Ramsay after Fat Walda has born him a child. Roose has made sure that Ramsay barely has any allies. Even the Bastard's Boys report to Roose. 

- It gives Jon a conflict with his vows, because he wants to save "Arya", but should remain neutral and it also lead to the Pink Letter. 

However, the show has cut all these aspects from the Jeyne Poole storyline.

The showrunners defended the choice to have Sansa marrying Ramsay by saying something like "there was a storyline in the books that we loved, but it included a character that did not exist in the show." However, the only aspects which they included from the Jeyne Poole storyline are the facts that Ramsay rapes his wife and that Theon helps her to escape. 

I think they should have either included all the things I've mentioned above and introduced a new character for playing Jeyne or they should've dropped that storyline completely. 

And yes Alfie Allen is a fantastic actor and really good at playing Theon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×