Jump to content

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


Cron

Recommended Posts

@Cron

I'm not denying that Cat had her daughters in mind when she released Jaime, both in the books and in the show, but that's not what I was talking about. As said in both mediums, she did something that is against king's orders (or at the very least without king's consent), and against common wisdom, and against logic. And she was aware of everything, but she did it anyway. The difference is, in the books her motives for doing something so irrational are infinitely stronger and more believable. In the books she sets him free after she heard about Bran and Rickon, and later it's revealed that Robb also did something irrational when he was given the same news, and it makes sense that in such a moment both of them reacted emotionally instead of rationally.

Just to be clear, neither Cat nor Robb are necessarily wrong. Cat is right to trust Jaime (which is the case in the books), and Robb is right that Jeyne would make a very good queen. But what they did was irrational, because Robb lost important (crucial?) ally, and Cat gave away their most important hostage. And besides, maybe Roslin Frey would also make a good queen, and who knows, if Jaime didn't loose his hand, who knows what would he do with Sansa (had she stayed in KL) if he was still as arrogant and reckless and easily manipulated by Cersei as before.

Such irrational actions must have reasons, or otherwise it's just bad storytelling. You can always "fill in the blanks" but that's not the point, because if you have to fill in the blanks about something as important as releasing Jaime or marrying Jeyne/Talisa, then it's bad storytelling. But it's even worse in the show, because you don't have to fill in the blanks, because it's clear that Cat released Jaime because Karstark troops wanted him dead.

Of course that she had her daughters in mind, but the entire sequence is set in motion after Jaime kills Karstark's son. That is the catalyst for Cat's decision. That and Littlefinger's word! Is that good storytelling? Seriously?

And about Robb, yes it is obvious that he broke his promise to Walder just because he was lusting after Talisa, and that is precisely what is the problem in the show. In the show Robb is a horny fool who lost his kingdom and his life because he had a hard-on for a sexy foreigner. I have to ask again: do you really think that that is good storytelling? And just compare that to the source material, where he is struck with grief and even guilt! It's just not comparable, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding my $0.02 about Catelyn in the show.  She is much more likeable.  It's not that she is hard to sympathize with in the books but they completely removed the Lady Macbeth aspect from her character in Season 1.  If anything, I think Catelyn is sort of hard to like in the books.  Mostly it's because she was a bitch to Jon but she just seems a little less smart throughout her chapters.

 

Again credit to the actress.  I prefer the books and I normally don't go for serialized TV but I am a film lover, and I give props to an actor who can add a greater deal of depth to a character that the writer didn't consider.  Like Tywin, Cersei in the show is an exception to the rest of the shows where the characters are quite dumbed down.  Credit the actors - the writers dumb them down because they think we're stupid and they aren't very subtle in their own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cron said:

As I mentioned in a prior post, to me, it seems likely that the line was put in there, and having Howland stab Arthur in the back was put in there, precisely to convey the fact that Ned is NOT as honorable as people generally believe.  Again,though,don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ned is highly DIS-honorable, just that, in my opinion, he's not as honorable as people think.  On a scale of 1 to 10, I think a lot of people would give Ned a "10" in honor but I'd say a "9."  What would your number be for Ned's honor?

I don't think that your interpretation is correct at all, but let's assume that it is. That would mean that D&D decided to reveal something important about Ned five seasons after he's gone! That would be even worse than my assumption, which is that they just don't care and don't understand.

But honestly I don't see any reason to buy your interpretation.

First, your criteria for "totally honorable" is unrealistic. Nobody would pass it with ten. Do you seriously believe that an honorable person would repeat all of his mistakes just because they were honorable? Honorable shouldn't be the same as suicidal.

Second, just because Ned does some things that aren't totally honorable, it doesn't mean that he's not honorable. In each of those instances, he could've easily taken the safer or the easier path by doing something even less honorable. But he never did anything similar. In each of those instances he is pursuing something that can be described as "higher justice". He lies Robert on his deathbed because telling him the truth at that moment would lead only to unnecessary tragedy. He asks Littlefinger for help because the alternative is to let Cersei and Joff take the throne they don't have the right to. In the end he sacrifices his honor to save his daughter, which is precisely what an honorable man should do when forced to choose between the two.

Third, I'm positive that you're reading too much into the way Howland killed Arthur. The most probable explanation is that D&D wanted to show that Arthur was so good as swordsman that he could only be killed from behind.

Forth, Bran's line is most probably D&D's stupid way of showing how naive Bran still is. The entire conversation between Three-Eyed Raven and Bran, not only in that scene but in the entire season, is about TER lecturing Bran that he still has much to learn and that he's still naive. And of course, thanks to their lack of talent, they wrote a line that goes against Ned's character as already established in the show (not to mention the books).

But that's what is the issue here, there is no logical way to explain D&D's writing. That is why I said that their writing falls apart under any scrutiny. If you take Bran's line seriously, then it means that Ned has done something dishonorably. That is the only way to explain Bran's line, because Howland never had any contact with Bran (as established in season 3 when Meera and Jojen meet him), so it must be Ned who told Bran stories about ToJ. But then, that would mean that Ned was not as honorable as he was portrayed in the show. But why did they write him as honorable in season 1, only to reveal his dishonorable side five years after he's gone and when that side of his doesn't have any effect on the story or the characters?

And on top of everything, let's not forget that probably the most honorable thing Ned ever did was protecting Jon the way he did. But when the show finally went there, in the scene where Ned's sacrifice is fully revealed, is that the point in which Ned's dishonor is to be displayed?

By the way, I know that the scene was split in two parts, bu chronologically it is one scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Does it matter that on the show that Brienne stated that Jaime will not live until morning. That Jaime himself mentioned that he will not live long. So Jaime being dead will mean Cat will have no means to get back Sansa and Arya. 

So the only way to save Jaime is to send him to the Lannisters? And not, for example, to hide him until Robb returns? Or even send him to Robb? LOL! Sometimes I really don't believe how strongly people desire to give a pass to D&D for their nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cron

I just watched ToJ scene again and I have to tell you that you might be right, because after Howland stabs Arthur Bran really says in disbelief: "He stabbed him in the back!" And his face expression suggests that he's disgusted by it, and also by Ned finishing Arthur.

I thought that something like that would be too stupid even for D&D, but I stand corrected. They always manage to surprise you with their incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, StepStark said:

So the only way to save Jaime is to send him to the Lannisters? And not, for example, to hide him until Robb returns? Or even send him to Robb? LOL! Sometimes I really don't believe how strongly people desire to give a pass to D&D for their nonsense.

You State paragraphs of what many people fine character analysis but the situtation involved it does not matter.

The situation faced is that Jaime will be dead before the morning so any chance to get the daughter back will be gone. Cat State of mind does not matter for she either let Jaime die or send him with Brienne to Kings Landing.

I do not need to explain why not do other things. The show established will not live long and she had to make her decision based on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You State paragraphs of what many people fine character analysis but the situtation involved it does not matter.

The situation faced is that Jaime will be dead before the morning so any chance to get the daughter back will be gone. Cat State of mind does not matter for she either let Jaime die or send him with Brienne to Kings Landing.

I do not need to explain why not do other things. The show established will not live long and she had to make her decision based on it.

But the situation is stupid, that is what I'm saying. What the show "established" is moronic.

You are saying that Cat had to choose: either she sends Jaime to Lannisters, or he dies. But that is the problem, because that situation is unrealistic. In a realistic situation they could save Jaime by hiding him. Or they could put more guards around him. Both are better than to send him to Lannisters.

And if Starks can't stop Karstarks from killing Jaime, then how come Cat isn't killed by Karstarks after she released him?

Nothing adds up, that is the problem. So many questions and no reasonable answers. That's D&D for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

But the situation is stupid, that is what I'm saying. What the show "established" is moronic.

You are saying that Cat had to choose: either she sends Jaime to Lannisters, or he dies. But that is the problem, because that situation is unrealistic. In a realistic situation they could save Jaime by hiding him. Or they could put more guards around him. Both are better than to send him to Lannisters.

And if Starks can't stop Karstarks from killing Jaime, then how come Cat isn't killed by Karstarks after she released him?

Nothing adds up, that is the problem. So many questions and no reasonable answers. That's D&D for you.

Karstark wanted to kill Jaime for killing his son to escape that night. I do not understand what is unrealistic.

Hiding Jaime takes time they do not have. You are running a real risk of conflict.

Brienne stated that no one in the end will stand against The Karstarks. Take that for what you want.

Karstark did not find it desireable to kill the King's mother.

"Who wants to die defending an Lannister?"-Brienne

There will be more people willing to defend Cat being harmed for releasing Jaime than to protect Jaime himself. 

I think Robb letting Jaime live is more difficult on the show. He killed an important Lord's son off the field of battle. 

Cat's action is based on what situation she find herself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Karstark wanted to kill Jaime for killing his son to escape that night. I do not understand what is unrealistic.

I didn't say that is unrealistic. That's maybe the only realistic thing about it. Please don't put words into my mouth.

28 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Hiding Jaime takes time they do not have. You are running a real risk of conflict.

It takes less than or same time as sending Jaime on a long trip with Brienne. They could easily send Brienne and him into hiding, and then bring him back once Robb returns.

31 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Brienne stated that no one in the end will stand against The Karstarks. Take that for what you want.

Karstark did not find it desireable to kill the King's mother.

"Who wants to die defending an Lannister?"-Brienne

There will be more people willing to defend Cat being harmed for releasing Jaime than to protect Jaime himself.

Even after she released Jaime?

31 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Cat's action is based on what situation she find herself in.

And the situation is stupid, unrealistic, stretched beyond belief. Nothing like that ever happened in real life. It is as stupid as Ramsay's "20 good men" which also never happened in real life in any of the wars. I'm actually amused by how much effort you're putting into defending and rationalizing D&D's stupidity, instead of just admitting that it actually was stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, StepStark said:

It takes less than or same time as sending Jaime on a long trip with Brienne. They could easily send Brienne and him into hiding, and then bring him back once Robb returns.

Even after she released Jaime?

And the situation is stupid, unrealistic, stretched beyond belief. Nothing like that ever happened in real life. It is as stupid as Ramsay's "20 good men" which also never happened in real life in any of the wars. I'm actually amused by how much effort you're putting into defending and rationalizing D&D's stupidity, instead of just admitting that it actually was stupid.

Still does not mean Robb would not execute Jaime to satisfied a Major Lord with a more legitimite reason to want Jaime dead. Just releasing Jaime takes a very difficult decision out of Robb's hands.

You are certain Robb will leave Jaime alive when the situation of Karstark's son death is different and will be harder for Robb to allow.

I already stated men will be more willing to die for Cat releasing Jaime than for Jaime himself. 

You are saying it is unrealistic and nothing else. I mixed things up but you are not clear on what exactly is. What is unrealistic of thinking that you are about to have your most valuable hostage killed losing all value or letting him go with an escort based on a chance to get your love ones back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StepStark said:

This is from ASOS, when Robb returns to Riverrun with Jeyne and speaks with Cat:

And just a little later, in the same chapter, in the same conversation, when Cat asks him why Grey Wind isn't with him, he answers:

So I think it's pretty obvious how deeply Robb was affected by Bran and Rickon's deaths, just as any loving brother would of course. It's pretty obvious that for him everything changed after he heard of their deaths. It affected even his relationship with Grey Wind. And just look how many times he mentions their deaths in a single conversation (parts that I emphasized). So I don't think there is any room for thinking that the news didn't have anything to do with him breaking his promise to Walder Frey. Ever since he heard the news, that's practically all Robb was able to think about. He even became obsessed with providing an heir to his throne, because Bran and Rickon can't inherit it in case something happens to him.

Interesting reading.  Clearly, these events (Robb meeting and being with Jeyne and Robb getting the news of Bran and Rickon's alleged deaths) happened very closely in time, but I think it's a big jump from there to an assumption that if Theon hadn't done what he did, that Robb woudl not have broken his oath to Walder, IF in fact that is what you are claiming.

Is that what you are claiming?  That if Theon hadn't killed those boys, and/or lied and said they were Bran and  Rickon, that Robb  and Jeyne would not have gotten together, and Robb would not have broken his oath to Walder?

9 hours ago, StepStark said:

And one more correction: when Littlefinger approaches Cat in Renly's camp in season 2, she specifically accuses him of betraying Ned. He defends with some weak excuse like "those are false rumors", but she insists that he repaid the Starks with treason. So yes, according to the show, Cat somehow knew that it was Littlefinger who betrayed Ned in KL. And then, as it's often the case with D&D, that issue just disappeared, never to be mentioned again, and Cat even goes on and releases Jaime TRUSTING THE WORD OF LITTLEFINGER (even by your interpretation, she at least has to trust him that Tyrion promised to release the girls for Jaime, though I don't know how can she ever believe that even that part is true and not one of Littlefinger's schemes).

I'll answer the rest of your points soon.

Hmmm.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but i"d have to review that scene and dialogue VERY closely.

My memory, and/or impression of it, was that she was upset with LF cuz LF had at least clearly sided with the Lannisters AFTER THE FACT (which was obvious, my goodness he was there meeting with Cat on behalf of Tyrion), but I never got the impression that she even suspected the full depth of LF's betrayal, and I have no reason to believe she did.

I might have to review that scene some day, to see if it sheds any light on it, but I've a feeling it won't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StepStark said:

The show on its own is between 4 and 5. Even the highs are something I've already watched in other shows or movies, only written more competently. And the lows are just terrible and cringe-worthy. If I wasn't already invested in the source material, I would quit long time ago.

As adaptation, it is between 1 and 2. I don't think I ever saw anything as good as ASOIAF transformed into something so mediocre and flawed as GOT.

Previous two season I watched only after they ended. For no particular reason. I guess I just don't have the patience to wait between episodes, because I'm really not emotionally invested in the show at all. It will probably be the case with the new season, though I have to admit that based on trailers cinematography looks much improved and those large scale battles look intriguing, so maybe I'll watch it in real time.

Huh.  Well, you're certainly not alone on these boards, in my opinion (if you check the "Rate the Episode" boards, sure enough, there are people who rate it that low), but frankly, if I thought it sucked that badly I would have stopped watching after Season One.

But, I hear you, sounds like you like the books a lot, so that's why you stick with it, if I understand you correctly.

Hopefully you'll enjoy this season more.  Who knows, maybe it will make a big leap forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

@Cron

I'm not denying that Cat had her daughters in mind when she released Jaime, both in the books and in the show, but that's not what I was talking about. As said in both mediums, she did something that is against king's orders (or at the very least without king's consent), and against common wisdom, and against logic. And she was aware of everything, but she did it anyway. The difference is, in the books her motives for doing something so irrational are infinitely stronger and more believable. In the books she sets him free after she heard about Bran and Rickon, and later it's revealed that Robb also did something irrational when he was given the same news, and it makes sense that in such a moment both of them reacted emotionally instead of rationally.

Just to be clear, neither Cat nor Robb are necessarily wrong. Cat is right to trust Jaime (which is the case in the books), and Robb is right that Jeyne would make a very good queen. But what they did was irrational, because Robb lost important (crucial?) ally, and Cat gave away their most important hostage. And besides, maybe Roslin Frey would also make a good queen, and who knows, if Jaime didn't loose his hand, who knows what would he do with Sansa (had she stayed in KL) if he was still as arrogant and reckless and easily manipulated by Cersei as before.

Such irrational actions must have reasons, or otherwise it's just bad storytelling. You can always "fill in the blanks" but that's not the point, because if you have to fill in the blanks about something as important as releasing Jaime or marrying Jeyne/Talisa, then it's bad storytelling. But it's even worse in the show, because you don't have to fill in the blanks, because it's clear that Cat released Jaime because Karstark troops wanted him dead.

Of course that she had her daughters in mind, but the entire sequence is set in motion after Jaime kills Karstark's son. That is the catalyst for Cat's decision. That and Littlefinger's word! Is that good storytelling? Seriously?

And about Robb, yes it is obvious that he broke his promise to Walder just because he was lusting after Talisa, and that is precisely what is the problem in the show. In the show Robb is a horny fool who lost his kingdom and his life because he had a hard-on for a sexy foreigner. I have to ask again: do you really think that that is good storytelling? And just compare that to the source material, where he is struck with grief and even guilt! It's just not comparable, really.

Well, in my opinion, what you are saying, in sum, is that the books are better than the show.

My reply: Yes, I agree.  I have never claimed otherwise.  The books, in my view, are masterpieces, and if I had been the showrunner, the show would have followed the books much more closely (as I've often said, I think it seems that, sometimes, the showrunners think they are better storytellers than GRRM, but...in my opinion, they're NOT.  If I'm wrong, and they are then I think they should go write their own original stories and make their fortunes that way, just like GRRM)

But I don't often let my great love of the books get in the way of my enjoyment of the show.  Is the show full of holes compared to the books? Sure.  The books have VASTLY more detail, which is why, in my opinion, the original book (for almost any story) is almost always better than the film or t.v. adaptation.  I agree with that completely.

But...I still enjoy the show, and if there ever comes a time that I don't, I'll just stop watching it.  Each person makes their own choice about that, of course, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

I don't think that your interpretation is correct at all, but let's assume that it is. That would mean that D&D decided to reveal something important about Ned five seasons after he's gone! That would be even worse than my assumption, which is that they just don't care and don't understand.

But honestly I don't see any reason to buy your interpretation.

First, your criteria for "totally honorable" is unrealistic. Nobody would pass it with ten. Do you seriously believe that an honorable person would repeat all of his mistakes just because they were honorable? Honorable shouldn't be the same as suicidal.

Second, just because Ned does some things that aren't totally honorable, it doesn't mean that he's not honorable. In each of those instances, he could've easily taken the safer or the easier path by doing something even less honorable. But he never did anything similar. In each of those instances he is pursuing something that can be described as "higher justice". He lies Robert on his deathbed because telling him the truth at that moment would lead only to unnecessary tragedy. He asks Littlefinger for help because the alternative is to let Cersei and Joff take the throne they don't have the right to. In the end he sacrifices his honor to save his daughter, which is precisely what an honorable man should do when forced to choose between the two.

Third, I'm positive that you're reading too much into the way Howland killed Arthur. The most probable explanation is that D&D wanted to show that Arthur was so good as swordsman that he could only be killed from behind.

Forth, Bran's line is most probably D&D's stupid way of showing how naive Bran still is. The entire conversation between Three-Eyed Raven and Bran, not only in that scene but in the entire season, is about TER lecturing Bran that he still has much to learn and that he's still naive. And of course, thanks to their lack of talent, they wrote a line that goes against Ned's character as already established in the show (not to mention the books).

But that's what is the issue here, there is no logical way to explain D&D's writing. That is why I said that their writing falls apart under any scrutiny. If you take Bran's line seriously, then it means that Ned has done something dishonorably. That is the only way to explain Bran's line, because Howland never had any contact with Bran (as established in season 3 when Meera and Jojen meet him), so it must be Ned who told Bran stories about ToJ. But then, that would mean that Ned was not as honorable as he was portrayed in the show. But why did they write him as honorable in season 1, only to reveal his dishonorable side five years after he's gone and when that side of his doesn't have any effect on the story or the characters?

And on top of everything, let's not forget that probably the most honorable thing Ned ever did was protecting Jon the way he did. But when the show finally went there, in the scene where Ned's sacrifice is fully revealed, is that the point in which Ned's dishonor is to be displayed?

By the way, I know that the scene was split in two parts, bu chronologically it is one scene.

My friend, I never said Ned is "not honorable."  In fact, on a scale of 1 to 10, I gave him a 9. Does that sound like "not honorable"?

I read your entire post, but at this point, I think that for me to respond in detail would just amount to me repeating things I've already said.You have opinions about some things, I have opinions about some things. Some of these issues may become more clear if and when we are given the book version of these events.  Perhaps then, more light will be shed on this, and if in fact the books support what you are saying, that will definitely be a factor to take into account (and, if the show and books are different on these issues, then I will almost certainly prefer the books, and consider that the true "canon" material)

A final note:  Howland Reed could have told the story to other people, who told the story to Bran.  Thus, even if it's accurate that Bran and Howland Reed never met, that does not necessarily mean Bran MUST have heard the story from Ned.   Having said that, once again, I think it would be helpful to get Bran's exact language from the show on the subject, cuz I admit I can't quote if verbatim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

@Cron

I just watched ToJ scene again and I have to tell you that you might be right, because after Howland stabs Arthur Bran really says in disbelief: "He stabbed him in the back!" And his face expression suggests that he's disgusted by it, and also by Ned finishing Arthur.

I thought that something like that would be too stupid even for D&D, but I stand corrected. They always manage to surprise you with their incompetence.

Very interesting.  I am impressed by your honor and candor in posting that.

And I understand that a lot of what we are talking about boils down to opinions, which I think we all have here.

And, for my part, as I've already admitted, you did give me an interesting new perspective on that scene.  An argument CAN be made that they were all engaged in a free for all melee, and that "all's fair in love and war" (my words here), and that Arthur Dayne was simply foolish to turn his back on Howland Reed.   A case CAN be argued for all of that.  

I really enjoy alternative perspectives on these boards, and you have provided one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Still does not mean Robb would not execute Jaime to satisfied a Major Lord with a more legitimite reason to want Jaime dead. Just releasing Jaime takes a very difficult decision out of Robb's hands.

You are certain Robb will leave Jaime alive when the situation of Karstark's son death is different and will be harder for Robb to allow.

So Robb is a moron, is that what you are saying? Robb would kill Jaime and therefore in effect kill his two sisters? That is what you think that Cat fears when she releases Jaime? LOL!

Sorry to say but that is not how logic works. Logic doesn't mean doing some mental gymnastics to justify stupid scenes from the show, but that is exactly what you are doing. You're just inventing more and more reasons why Jaime's life could be in danger, but those reasons are absurd and never mentioned in the show. And it's actually good for the show that it wasn't mentioned, because just imagine how would Robb look like if Cat really feared that he would effectively kill Sansa and Arya!

Quote

I already stated men will be more willing to die for Cat releasing Jaime than for Jaime himself. 

If Karstark is out of control, as you are saying, then you can't put him under control again by infuriating him even more! If the situation is so desperate and so out of control that Stark men can't protect the life of their most precious captive, then it can only get worse after Cat releases that captive without any authority to do so. That is just simple logic of any military environment, and especially in feudal society.

But the whole situation is even more absurd because Jaime is not in danger from Karstark himself, who publicly promised that he is going to wait for Robb's return. It was filmed as if Karstark men are a threat to Jaime's life because they'll get drunk and attack Jaime. Do you realize how stupid that is? "Because Karstark men will get drunk, we must set Jaime free!" LOL! That is really as stupid as it gets.

Quote

You are saying it is unrealistic and nothing else. I mixed things up but you are not clear on what exactly is. What is unrealistic of thinking that you are about to have your most valuable hostage killed losing all value or letting him go with an escort based on a chance to get your love ones back. 

Are you even reading what I write? I just gave you reasons why the entire situation is absurd. But why do you think it's realistic? Because it happened on screen?

And funny how you ignored the most logical solution: to hide Jaime. That would be the easiest way to save Jaime's life AND it would also keep him in captivity. That's what any normal person would do if fearing for Jaime's life. But of course, D&D never even thought of that, they just keep inventing their impossible situations so they can have their impossible "resolutions". I'm just surprised how strongly you refuse to question anything from the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cron said:

Interesting reading.  Clearly, these events (Robb meeting and being with Jeyne and Robb getting the news of Bran and Rickon's alleged deaths) happened very closely in time, but I think it's a big jump from there to an assumption that if Theon hadn't done what he did, that Robb woudl not have broken his oath to Walder, IF in fact that is what you are claiming.

Is that what you are claiming?  That if Theon hadn't killed those boys, and/or lied and said they were Bran and  Rickon, that Robb  and Jeyne would not have gotten together, and Robb would not have broken his oath to Walder?

Of course that I do. Death of Bran and Rickon changed everything for everyone. In the books it is strongly implied that Roose and Freys started thinking about betraying Robb only after they've heard that Theon captured Winterfell (that's the conversation Arya overhears late in ACOK when she's Roose's cupbearer but of course that scene was not in the show because there Arya is Tywin's cupbearer for "reasons"). Roose says it directly to Theon in ADWD that the war was decided once Theon captured Winterfell (one more scene that of course didn't find its way into the show because Ramsay fucking his girlfriend is probably more important).

People in feudal societies didn't break promises as easily as the show portrays. Book Robb would never break his promise to Frey just because he fell in love with some girl. Even GRRM said himself that he researched history and that there isn't a single example of someone losing his kingdom for love.

There is no "big jump" there. If you don't see that the news from Winterfell were crucial for Robb falling for Jeyne, then I don't know what else to say honestly. It is there, in the text, three times. Not even once Robb says "I fell in love with her" (he did, but only AFTER she comforted him when he was grieving for his brothers), but he talks about Bran and Rickon three times.

5 hours ago, Cron said:

But I don't often let my great love of the books get in the way of my enjoyment of the show.

Do you think that my love for the books gets in the way of my enjoyment of the show? I don't see why would you, because I clearly separated how I judge the show on its own and how I judge it as adaptation.

5 hours ago, Cron said:

Howland Reed could have told the story to other people, who told the story to Bran.  Thus, even if it's accurate that Bran and Howland Reed never met, that does not necessarily mean Bran MUST have heard the story from Ned.   Having said that, once again, I think it would be helpful to get Bran's exact language from the show on the subject, cuz I admit I can't quote if verbatim.

Do you see how deep and wide one has to go to justify just s ingle line from the show? That is a prefect example of bad writing: if you want to make any sense of Bran's line, you have to come up with a mini-tale about Howland And the scene is on Youtube, you can check for yourself if you want and here is what Bran says: "But my father beat him. I know he did, I've heard the story a thousand times". So either Ned or Howland or both talked a lot about that fight and obviously not in a truthful manner. And that's the opposite of how Ned was depicted even in the show itself, and Howland is someone who didn't say a single word in the show or in the books - so to make sense of Bran's line, one has to invent some elaborate theory about Howland and what he was doing in his life after the fight, even though we don't know anything about him.

That is why I keep repeating that D&D's writing falls apart under any scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

So Robb is a moron, is that what you are saying? Robb would kill Jaime and therefore in effect kill his two sisters? That is what you think that Cat fears when she releases Jaime? LOL!

Sorry to say but that is not how logic works. Logic doesn't mean doing some mental gymnastics to justify stupid scenes from the show, but that is exactly what you are doing. You're just inventing more and more reasons why Jaime's life could be in danger, but those reasons are absurd and never mentioned in the show. And it's actually good for the show that it wasn't mentioned, because just imagine how would Robb look like if Cat really feared that he would effectively kill Sansa and Arya!

If Karstark is out of control, as you are saying, then you can't put him under control again by infuriating him even more! If the situation is so desperate and so out of control that Stark men can't protect the life of their most precious captive, then it can only get worse after Cat releases that captive without any authority to do so. That is just simple logic of any military environment, and especially in feudal society.

But the whole situation is even more absurd because Jaime is not in danger from Karstark himself, who publicly promised that he is going to wait for Robb's return. It was filmed as if Karstark men are a threat to Jaime's life because they'll get drunk and attack Jaime. Do you realize how stupid that is? "Because Karstark men will get drunk, we must set Jaime free!" LOL! That is really as stupid as it gets.

Are you even reading what I write? I just gave you reasons why the entire situation is absurd. But why do you think it's realistic? Because it happened on screen?

And funny how you ignored the most logical solution: to hide Jaime. That would be the easiest way to save Jaime's life AND it would also keep him in captivity. That's what any normal person would do if fearing for Jaime's life. But of course, D&D never even thought of that, they just keep inventing their impossible situations so they can have their impossible "resolutions". I'm just surprised how strongly you refuse to question anything from the show.

No, Robb will be risking a major Bannermam with a major part of the North force leaving. There is nothing moronic about it.

I am doing no mental gymnastics of any sort.  The show put out that Cat in the end had one of two choices to make with Jaime. 

No it is not stupid to think alcohol can cause violet situation. I suggest you observe a few nights out to see the effect that alcohol can have on people.

I read a lot, you went on with the stupidity related to Cat's character and what was done in the show was to give a situation that her character state is irrelevant.

No I am not ignoring the hiding and gave explanation including the most important that Jaime could well be executed by Robb. 

I find it realistic that a person in the end will face a choice that they have to act on and cannot be avoided.

It is not the Stark man cannot defend it is that in the end they will not risk their life over Jaime. They will be more risking their life over an action from the King's Mother right or wrong.

That you do not like the scenario does not mean it is unrealistic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...