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

On 7/3/2017 at 2:09 PM, SecretWeapon said:

Margaery is better in the show. That's a fact. 

Yeah, she did a great job.  I thought the actress had great facial expressions, there always seemed to be a knowing twinkle in her eye.  Always seemed to me like she'd be a fun person to hang out with.

I was stunned when Margaery died, biggest shock of the entire show for me.  I thought for sure she'd make it to the end, or darn close (never would have dreamed Olenna would outlive Margaery)

Share this post


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

Unlike many characters on the show, I liked show Margaery for the most part and it felt like a real shame that she along with her brother and father got abruptly terminated when it felt like her storyline was going somewhere. I also thought she was the most attractive remaining woman in the cast. I'm going to miss her.

Yeah, and in addition to all that, she seemed really smart, like she had a plan, had everything under control.  When she gave Olenna that picture of the rose, I thought for sure that Margaery had it all worked out, and she would could come out on top (at least regarding the High Sparrow and the Faith Militant)

Even at the end, he showed she was smarter than anyone else in the sept, cuz she was the only one who realized they were in mortal danger and needed to get out there.  High Sparrow as utterly clueless, which did not surprise me in the least.  He was in WAY over his head, for a long time, and didn't even realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

By it's very nature, the show is written by a greater collection of people then D&D. Natalie Dormer put life and personality in Margeary that some people felt was lacking in the books, despite some episode scripts not holding up under scrutiny, it is fine to think this. 

I agree.  In fact, I liked her work so much I'm considering checking out that other major show she did, The Tudors.  I've heard that's really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Knight of Flours said:

Cup of sweetmilk anyone?

Naw.  Gonna stick with something harder.

Share this post


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

It's funny how you ask arguments from me, and yet you never give any real argument why Margaery is "better" in the show. Just to be clear, I don't expect you to, because there are no arguments of that kind, because Margaery in the show is poorly written character in every way imaginable. There are no "motives" behind her facade, other than that she wants to be The Queen. Besides that, I have no idea what motives are we talking about even? Everything she does in the show before she's arrested is about that goal of hers, except maybe her scene with Sansa when she explains to her that Tyrion is handsome - I have no idea what could possibly be her motive for that (it's definitely not Sansa's well-being, since she obviously never cared for her), but I guess it doesn't have anything to do with her becoming The Queen. In every other scene Margaery is "playing the Game" or trying to, which is somewhat tiring on its own, but becomes a lot worse when combined with ridiculous dialogue.

Actually i did.

22 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

On that same note, being "a player" is not what makes her a better character, explaining what she truly is behind her "beautiful and charitable queen" act in a manner that feels coherent to the character is what makes her a better character to bookMarg. Hell, GRRM himself said showMarge was " almost what my Margaery will become in ten years"

You simply chose to ignore it

We may not know her motivations for wanting to be THE queen. But if that makes her a bad character, then bookMarg must be even worse, because we don't know her motivations at all.

Regarding the Tyrion talk, let me remind you in first place that GRRM himself was in charge of that episode. Now we got that clear, she simply doesn't win anything by being bitchy to Sansa, maybe she earns a future victory by having a nice talk with her, and it keeps her "kind girl" facade intact.

22 hours ago, StepStark said:

But also, there are lines that are so poor that it can be proven, and the other line falls into that category. Just think about it: Cersei knows the consequences of not coming here but she's still not here and so we better get out of here. Where to begin? As one video review said immediately after the episode, people risk consequences for doing or not doing something literally every day, and it still doesn't mean that anybody of us is planning to blow up holly places. How can anybody come to the conclusion that Cersei is going to kill all of them just because she didn't show up? Just imagine the paranoia in real life if someone didn't show up at work and risks getting fired: he must be planning to blow up the entire building, right? LOL!

Because Cersei's father who she want's to emulate gave the Lannisters that type of reputation

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Wedding

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/The_Rains_of_Castamere_(song)

There's nothing that indicates she was literally expecting blowing up, she probably imagined something like the Red Wedding 2.0.

22 hours ago, StepStark said:

About Margaery's motives for delivering Tommen to HS, your explanation is all the evidence I need to show how stupid is the plot in the show and how little D&D actually think about motives behind their characters' actions. I'm not talking about her pretending that she suddenly cares about faith. That'd be somewhat logical on her part. But, in reality, only an idiot would buy such performance, which again makes her attempt unrealistic, because for her plan to work HS must be an idiot and she doesn't have any reason to expect that he is. But okay, let's put that aside, because I wasn't even talking about that. I was specifically talking about delivering Tommen to HS. If anyone knows how weak and easy to manipulate Tommen is, it should be Margaery. If anyone knows how cunning and manipulative HS is, it's Margaery. But she delivers Tommen to HS anyway? Does that sound logical to you?

But she DID properly analyze the HS and her plan DID work. It was Cersei's sucker punch what what ruined it. After she and Loras were free, there was plenty of ways to subvert the HS and disarm the Faith Militant.

22 hours ago, StepStark said:

All in all, the show didn't add anything about Margaery from the books, because they are two very different characters. Margaery from the books is still unknown for the most part, but as I said repeatedly, that is way better than being "fleshed" in a totally wrong way, through poorl written lines and illogical plots.

"I DISLIKE IT SO IT'S WROOOOOOOOOONG" Dude, even GRRM himself said that was almost a perfect older version of his Marge. Deal with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 6:54 PM, Prof. Cecily said:

I lift my frosted glass of pale Albariño wine in tribute to your 1,000th post.

And once again in anticipation of your 2,000th!

 

I'm with you. Natalie Dormer was splendid.

From that stroll through Renly's camp with lord Baelish to her efforts to make Joffry a king,  to her needling of Cersei, to her widened eyes as she understands what's about to happen in the Great Sept.

A class act.

Now it remains to see just how GRRM has conceived the personage- I'm pretty sure we won't be disappointed.

And what fun it is to have both versions!

Yeah, Margaery has her strengths (and I thoroughly enjoy her in the show and books; she's not perfect but none of the characters are), but ultimately she made the same mistake as Ned Stark:  Badly underestimating how vicious and ruthless Cersei is (at least, early on when Margaery got to King's Landing.   By the time of the Green Trial, yeah, Margaery was ahead of the pack in understanding Cersei, but by then it was way too late)

But I do think she's a good character (books and show), and I was very sad to see her get crossed off.

Share this post


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

Yeah, Margaery has her strengths (and I thoroughly enjoy her in the show and books; she's not perfect but none of the characters are), but ultimately she made the same mistake as Ned Stark:  Badly underestimating how vicious and ruthless Cersei is (at least, early on when Margaery got to King's Landing.   By the time of the Green Trial, yeah, Margaery was ahead of the pack in understanding Cersei, but by then it was way too late)

But I do think she's a good character (books and show), and I was very sad to see her get crossed off.

I understood the actress asked to be released from GoT to pursue other roles.

Who knows?

Queen Margaery's character is yet to be really explored by GRRM and I'm hoping for more about her in future books of the saga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

Actually i did.

You simply chose to ignore it

We may not know her motivations for wanting to be THE queen. But if that makes her a bad character, then bookMarg must be even worse, because we don't know her motivations at all.

Regarding the Tyrion talk, let me remind you in first place that GRRM himself was in charge of that episode. Now we got that clear, she simply doesn't win anything by being bitchy to Sansa, maybe she earns a future victory by having a nice talk with her, and it keeps her "kind girl" facade intact.

Because Cersei's father who she want's to emulate gave the Lannisters that type of reputation

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Wedding

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/The_Rains_of_Castamere_(song)

There's nothing that indicates she was literally expecting blowing up, she probably imagined something like the Red Wedding 2.0.

But she DID properly analyze the HS and her plan DID work. It was Cersei's sucker punch what what ruined it. After she and Loras were free, there was plenty of ways to subvert the HS and disarm the Faith Militant.

"I DISLIKE IT SO IT'S WROOOOOOOOOONG" Dude, even GRRM himself said that was almost a perfect older version of his Marge. Deal with it

Putting words into someone else's mouth is hardly helpful. GRRM didn't say that Margaery in the show "was almost a perfect older version of his Marg". He didn't use the word perfect. I know you're trying to make your case as strong as possible, but with moves like that one you're only making it weaker. Here's GRRM's actual quote:

"My Margaery is younger than Loras, not older than Loras. So she’s really just like a sixteen year old kid. And Natalie is brilliant, but she’s clearly not a sixteen year old kid. She’s very smart. She’s almost what my Margaery will become in ten years."

Here's the link:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/george-r-r-martin-answers-our-toughest-song-of-ice-and-886133300

Honestly he seems to be talking more about Natalie Dormer than about Margaery from the show in that quote, which is one more sign of the obsession with actors that runs throughout the show and everyone associated with the show. But leaving that aside, I don't really think that GRRM is without interest in saying nice things about the show. Did he ever say anything truly negative about the show? No he didn't, and yet, it is logical to expect that at least sometimes he had to be very disappointed in the show. But he never complained in public. He was always supportive so he probably sees that as his duty or something. And that is why I don't take his words about the show too seriously.

But even if he was serious, what about it? I'm not obliged to agree with GRRM. For example, I think that he genuinely liked Shae in the show, and at one point he even said that he prefers it to his version. But I find that statement completely absurd. And on top of everything, even Shae actress (who befriended GRRM, which is possibly the reason behind his praise for the character) admitted publicly that the scripts seemed confusing to her and that she though that Shae in the show doesn't make much sense (something to that effect, I can't find the actual quote). So I don't think that I have to like Shae from the show just because GRRM likes her, and the same goes for Margaery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

Actually i did.

You simply chose to ignore it

No you didn't make any serious argument, because you simply can't. There is nothing about Margaery in the show that isn't her ambition to be The Queen. And her ambition is revealed early on, in the second season, and now, five years later, that is still all you can say about her: she has a public facade, but actually she's all about her ambition. There is no character's dynamics at all. Is that a good written character? Of course not.

9 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

"I DISLIKE IT SO IT'S WROOOOOOOOOONG" Dude, even GRRM himself said that was almost a perfect older version of his Marge. Deal with it

If you were trying to mock me it failed, because I'm not even talking about what is likable and what isn't, but about the logic and realism. Actually, it seems the opposite: you are like "I LIKE IT SO IT MUST BE GOOD". And that's ok, you have every right to like Margaery in the show, but we're not discussing that here, aren't we? This is not about her likability or whatever, but about writing and character development. And in that department, Margaery is disaster: her lines are written poorly, plots she's involved in don't make sense, and there is no character development of any kind, except when she's inconsistent between seasons (which is not character development).

You keep repeating that in the show we see behind her facade and that seems to be your only "argument". It is true only in that in the show Margaery actually has a facade. But what is behind that facade is so one-dimensional that I'm not sure it even qualifies as a "look behind someone's facade". And to underline once more, her facade was revealed early in the second season. If that's the crowning achievement of Margaery as a character, then everything after second season was a waste of time in that department.

Since you obviously watched the show before you read the books, you were disappointed because you didn't find show Margaery in the books, and now you think that book Margaery has to be "improved" or "corrected". But she doesn't really. That is not how storytelling works. So far Margaery in the books is a very minor character. Stories as big and epic as ASOIAF have minor characters. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is having unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent and anachronistic characters, which Margaery in the show is. D&D didn't "expand" or "improve" Margaery, they were simply writing for Natalie Dormer, which is something they do very often and it always results in disasters. First they miscast Dormer, and then they doubled down on that mistake by writing for her, instead of expanding Margaery's role in a way that is logical for the setting and developing for the character. And in the end it ruined other characters as well, as the character of High Septon proves. HS is also changed a lot for the show, and I dislike it because the entire take on the faith in the books is much more intelligent and meaningful, but at least he wasn't written poorly. Maybe he was over the top with his bare foot and overall humbleness, but ok, it's a TV show and some simplifications are understandable. At least his lines weren't ridiculous and inconsistent: UNTIL EVEN HE WAS PUT IN SERVICE OF NATALIE DORMER! Because suddenly this cunning and shrewd man who up to that point outplayed some of the most powerful individuals in the realm, he suddenly falls for a cheap performance of Margaery. We're supposed to believe that he didn't even think about the possibility that Margaery is acting to save herself? LOL!

So there is expanding and there is expanding. Both Margaery and HS were expanded in the show. But there is a big difference, because HS was expanded with dialogues and plots that make sense and behind his facade there was a realistic human character. He too is one-dimensional, but at least that persona of his affects the plot. If HS was less fanatical and less driven the entire Sparrows plot had to be different, which means that his persona was crucial for the story. But look at Margaery, she could easily be some truly innocent little girl and her storyline and her role in the overall story could've stayed identical. What was seen behind her facade was neither well written nor actually meaningful in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CaptainTheo said:

Unlike many characters on the show, I liked show Margaery for the most part and it felt like a real shame that she along with her brother and father got abruptly terminated when it felt like her storyline was going somewhere. 

I agree. There are some small issues with the changes made to show!Marg (e.g. the beautiful daughter of a powerful house that is otherwise shown to be very eager to forge alliances through marriage staying unwed until at her mid/late 20 is incredibly strange) but overall, she was a good character and it was pretty disappointed that her story got literally nuked when it was the most interesting.

Her book and show versions are pretty different, but none is particularly better or worse.

One argument, I don't buy, however, is that show!Marg is a better because of Nat Dormers portrayal. Or generally speaking, a character X is better on the show, because actor Y is playing him. Tywin/Charles Dance is also pretty commonly often mentioned in that regard, I think. 

That's just totally nonsensical to me. Of course an actor can convey things like body language, intonation, emotion, facial expressions etc. and therefore "flesh out" a character infinitely better then text. Everything else would be a huge failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While reading the first book (I am at the point of Visery's death) I felt that the tv-show version of Daenerys is more likable than the book version. And also showed her transformation from innocent to powerful, a little better. I think that the book version showed her to want/accept herself as powerful too early (not that it's bad for women to want to be powerful, I simple state it for story reasons, it's more insteresting if the transformation is slow like in the show Breaking Bad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sanrast said:

I believe you are overthinking this. I didn't know that in this forum there a rival about fans who support Martin and others who support D&D. My  answer has nothing to do with this rival.

There is nothing to overthink about. I just asked you some questions and you failed to answer any of them, probably because you're not ready to question or doubt anything about the show. While at the same time, at this point you obviously don't hesitate to judge the books even though you haven't even finished the first one. Sorry to say but no overthinking is needed to realize that is just fanboyism.

Share this post


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

I just asked you some questions and you failed to answer any of them

Are you some kind of sphinx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I understood the actress asked to be released from GoT to pursue other roles.

Who knows?

Queen Margaery's character is yet to be really explored by GRRM and I'm hoping for more about her in future books of the saga.

Regarding "asked to be released":  Really???   Wow, if that's true, that's a shame!!  Have you seen her in The Tudors?  I'm considering checking that out.

Regarding book-Margaery:  I'm not saying you're wrong, and I know that's a common view, and I grant you that she's not nearly as well developed in the books as other characters, but I thought in the books I had a pretty good idea of who she was and what she was about, and i liked her a lot.  Seemed like a good, wholesome, fun-loving person to me, just like show-Margaery (with behind the scenes schemes in books and show, to boot)

Share this post


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

I agree. There are some small issues with the changes made to show!Marg (e.g. the beautiful daughter of a powerful house that is otherwise shown to be very eager to forge alliances through marriage staying unwed until at her mid/late 20 is incredibly strange) but overall, she was a good character and it was pretty disappointed that her story got literally nuked when it was the most interesting.

Her book and show versions are pretty different, but none is particularly better or worse.

One argument, I don't buy, however, is that show!Marg is a better because of Nat Dormers portrayal. Or generally speaking, a character X is better on the show, because actor Y is playing him. Tywin/Charles Dance is also pretty commonly often mentioned in that regard, I think. 

That's just totally nonsensical to me. Of course an actor can convey things like body language, intonation, emotion, facial expressions etc. and therefore "flesh out" a character infinitely better then text. Everything else would be a huge failure.

You raise a few interesting points for discussion, I think.

(1)  I'm not saying you're wrong, but do we know for sure that show-Margaery is in her mid to late 20's?  I mean, sure, yeah, the actress is, and clearly just about everyone has been aged up in the show, so it's reasonable to assume she's older than she is in the books, but I didn't think show-Margaery was supposed to be as old as Natalie Dormer actually is, I thought she was supposed to be playing a character younger than she is (which would make her far from unique in GoT, a number of actors are playing characters of different ages than they actually are, of course)

Again, not saying you're wrong, just wondering if I missed something, and maybe there really IS supporting evidence that show-Margaery actually is older than I realized.

(2)  I guess I'm probably one of the people you disagree with on actors improving characters, cuz in my opinion, it does happen.  Yes, I agree that Charles Dance did a great job with Tywin, but to me the biggest and best example of this is Bronn.  In the books, he's practically a one-dimensional cardboard cut out, but in the show he's a lot more, and a lot better, and I think the actor really breathed life into him early on, and that's a big part of why they expanded Bronn's role in the show.  Just my opinions, though, and I'm sure yours is equally valid, since the whole thing is such a highly subjective experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Cron said:

(1)  I'm not saying you're wrong, but do we know for sure that show-Margaery is in her mid to late 20's?  I mean, sure, yeah, the actress is, and clearly just about everyone has been aged up in the show, so it's reasonable to assume she's older than she is in the books, but I didn't think show-Margaery was supposed to be as old as Natalie Dormer actually is, I thought she was supposed to be playing a character younger than she is (which would make her far from unique in GoT, a number of actors are playing characters of different ages than they actually are, of course)

Again, not saying you're wrong, just wondering if I missed something, and maybe there really IS supporting evidence that show-Margaery actually is older than I realized.

I don't think Marg's age was ever mentioned in the show. But Natalie Dormer is 35, so I think assuming her character is up to 10yrs younger is already taking into account usual actor/character age differences. Saying, she is a teenager, like book!Marg, would certainly be pushing the suspension of disbelief a bit too far.

Share this post


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

(2)  I guess I'm probably one of the people you disagree with on actors improving characters, cuz in my opinion, it does happen.  Yes, I agree that Charles Dance did a great job with Tywin, but to me the biggest and best example of this is Bronn.  In the books, he's practically a one-dimensional cardboard cut out, but in the show he's a lot more, and a lot better, and I think the actor really breathed life into him early on, and that's a big part of why they expanded Bronn's role in the show.  Just my opinions, though, and I'm sure yours is equally valid, since the whole thing is such a highly subjective experience.

But what ultimately made show!Bronn better (I'd partly disagree with that, but let's ignore that for the sake of the argument) is his expanded role.

To "breath life into" a character is pretty much just an actor's job description. And more importantly, a book simply has no such thing as actors, there is nothing to compare in that regard, so no version can be better or worse because of it. (Ignoring he possibility of horrible miscastings, which imho the show never had)

Share this post


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

Regarding "asked to be released":  Really???   Wow, if that's true, that's a shame!!  Have you seen her in The Tudors?  I'm considering checking that out.

 

Well, it's what tthe actress herself says:

Quote

Natalie Dormer: I preempted the phone call because in true Natalie Dormer-style I tried to fit a million projects into a single year. I requested [while making season 5 that showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss] release me from working on the show earlier than usual so I could do another project, and they ended up phoning me — and that was The Call. But I got it six months ahead of normal. They were like, “We weren’t going to tell you this for a few more months, but we’re not going to release you now, so you can’t do that job you really want to do and we’re really sorry about that. But on the bright side, we are going to release you proper in the not-so-distant future.” It was good news, bad news — no you can’t do this, but don’t worry, you’re going to have lots more opportunities very soon.

http://ew.com/article/2016/06/26/game-thrones-natalie-dormer-2/

 

I haven't seen the Tudors, other than a few episodes. When I saw Catalina of Aragon portrayed as a brunette, I lost interest, I confess.

 

4 hours ago, Cron said:

 

Regarding book-Margaery:  I'm not saying you're wrong, and I know that's a common view, and I grant you that she's not nearly as well developed in the books as other characters, but I thought in the books I had a pretty good idea of who she was and what she was about, and i liked her a lot.  Seemed like a good, wholesome, fun-loving person to me, just like show-Margaery (with behind the scenes schemes in books and show, to boot)

You're quite right- a good wholesome fun-loving person.

I'm intrigued by how her character develops in TWOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rhollo said:

I don't think Marg's age was ever mentioned in the show. But Natalie Dormer is 35, so I think assuming her character is up to 10yrs younger is already taking into account usual actor/character age differences. Saying, she is a teenager, like book!Marg, would certainly be pushing the suspension of disbelief a bit too far.

She's 35???

Wow. Older than I realized.  I think should could pass for 10 years younger than that.

I thought she was LATE 20's,maybe a bit older, but I believe you.

In any event, I didn't assume show-Margaery was a teenager.  Like I said, the show characters have been aged up, I get that, so I assumed show-Margaery is early 20' (consistent with the aging up other characters, 4 or 5 years)s, portrayed by an actress maybe 7 or 8 years older.

But it sounds like we agree that, so far as we recall, show-Margaery's age is never given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×