How do D&D decide what to keep/cut..?

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

I just don't understand why he's dragging out Stannis's downfall.

You probably don't understand it because he's not doing it. He's not dragging Stannis' downfall, he's just delivering Stannis' arc (he happens to have one in the books) in a way that seems natural and fit for the setting and the tone and the spirit of the entire series.

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Him losing to the Boltons makes sense narratively, which would then leave room for the Starks to take back their home, whether it be Jon Snow or Sansa with the Knights of the Vale.

Actually it wouldn't make sense narratively, because then the entire Stannis' arc would be practically pointless. Narrative doesn't mean simply rushing the shortest path from point A in the story to point B in the story. It's much more important that characters and arcs have a purpose in the story. And Stannis' arc requires a closing that definitely isn't him dying in the coming battle with the Boltons because Ramsay sent his "20 good men" to destroy Stannis' army's supplies.

[teej6]

27 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

 

Arya's thing is so huge in my opinion. I'd say that I'd have liked to see just being stabbed once, or that magic had played a part on her healing, given that Braavos' arc is about magic. How would Lady Crane have had access to those potions to heal internal wounds and stop hemorrhage would be still be a big thing to respond, but at least, it would have been a better explanation, that just: it happened because we wanted to shock the audience (=aka she is used to heal her lovers and has some medicine in a cupboard), and then return to normality, or, jump even more, cut the waif, kill WF, etc.

Yeah people will go to any lengths to justify the ridiculous if they like something and that's what I've seen several show fans do on this forum. I do still the watch the show and will probably watch next season too, but nowadays the only way I can watch the show is like I would watch some mindless summer action movie -- with my brain switched off. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the first 3 seasons and S4 was not bad either. 

[Meera of Tarth]

3 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Yeah people will go to any lengths to justify the ridiculous if they like something and that's what I've seen several show fans do on this forum. I do still the watch the show and will probably watch next season too, but nowadays the only way I can watch the show is like I would watch some mindless summer action movie -- with my brain switched off. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the first 3 seasons and S4 was not bad either. 

Yes, I totally agree with that, I used to like the show a lot and that's the reason I started the books after s4 (wanting to see the adptation, later with s5.....). But now I only enjoy some storylines, and I have to pretend I'm watching a sitcom with many characters and situations. Better laugh than cry with certain things that are so bad and, that could be much much better if they wanted to write them properly. Just a little bit better, put interest in the scripts, and not just everything else from the production.

And the worst is that I try to enjoy it, but many times it's not possible. And I don't want the characters I still enjoy to end up being squashed like many others, and I still hope they can change some of them. I'm a sweet summer child I guess.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

We didn't get the Battle of Winterfell because GRRM's editor thought ADWD was too long. Stannis' arc in ADWD, IMO, is one of the best. The character is fully fleshed out and we begin to sympathize with the character and root for him. I really don't know what you mean by exposition, but I'm of the opinion that the less the exposition in a literary device (books, movies, TV shows) the better the product. GRRM does not do much exposition rather here and there he may have certain characters explaining past incidents or providing a description of motives but he expects the reader to identify and interpret for themselves as any smart writer would do. D&D, on the other hand, are famous for their over the top exposition. They dumb down to the audience and spoon feed the story in case the audience is too stupid to understand. In fact, the term sexposition was coined based on D&D's use of exposition during scenes depicting sex, which just shows how juvenile and amateur their skills are.  

GRRM's books do not lack a proper structure or narrative as you say. The fault, if one wants to nitpick, is that GRRM created a very expansive world with several characters, which may make it harder for him to wind down. As he's always said, he's not the kind of writer that is like an architect, who maps out their stories before hand, instead he is like a gardener and lets the story grow and progress while writing it. We as readers, after so many years, are looking for the story to conclude and wind down, and granted when characters are introduced in book 5 of a 7 book series, it makes you wonder if GRRM can wrap up the story in 2 books. But as Meera of Tarth said, even the late additions and extensive world building are interesting and good storytelling. It flows with the rest of the story seamlessly. As to GRRM concluding the series with 7 books, I believe he can and the end product will more than satisfy his readers.

The one time Martin decides to take his editor's advice . I agree that Stannis's arc, along with Theon's, was the best in ADWD, up to the point where it simply ended. I will forever think that leaving out the Battle of Winterfell was a mistake. Without it, Stannis's arc in Dance was incomplete.

Exposition, in the case of dramatic structure, is simply an introduction. 

Again, GRRM's expansive world is not a valid argument because it was his choice to expand the scope of his world, dedicating time away from the main characters. I found that the characters were lazily introduced and feel out of place in the story that they are in. I used to have faith in Martin's writing ability, but that faith evaporated after Feast and Dance. I no longer believe he'll be able to finish this story.

As for the bolded, to many show watchers, this is the most complex show on television. A lot of them still don't remember all of the characters, so I don't think D&D overdid it with exposition. And sexposition stopped after season 2.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

D&D, on the other hand, are bad storytellers as they can't write a coherent, full formed narrative without the source material. You mentioned that the Stannis arc on the show was satisfactory for you, to me it was a perfect example of inconsistent, illogical, poorly conceived writing. D&D decided to get rid of Stannis so as to have Jon fight Ramsay, so what do they do? Invent 20 good men, stolen horses (by the way Melissandre found a horse) and rations, and a blizzard and a pile of snow, which disappears the next day. Oh and lets not forget, Ramsay's army was only walking distance away from where Stannis and his army was camped. Stannis a seasoned commander does not bother with scouts to track the enemy. No, Stannis arc, like many others was butchered at the hands of these hacks. 

The blizzard vanished because of Shireen's sacrifice. That was the whole point. The 20 good men bit wasn't the best way to end Stannis, but I didn't find it to be as bad as a lot of other people did. I found Stannis's downfall to be quite interesting and loved his last words. "Go on, do your duty." Perfect words for Stannis Baratheon.

 

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

As for Arya getting stabbed and running like a sprinter within days, there's no scientific way that can happen. Arya was stabbed several times in the gut and even if the Waif missed her vital organs, Arya should have either bled to death or should have contracted sepsis (considering she fell into water that might have had all the contaminants of Bravos in it). So how does Arya heal and recover? An actress whose only experience is stitching up her many lovers after she stabs them is able to stitch up Arya's many wounds and cure her with some soup and magic potions (I don't believe the middle ages, which Westeros is based on had antibiotics) from her cupboard. And then, in a short while, we see Arya dashing through the streets like a sprinter. One has to really try hard and suspend disbelief to buy this crap. 

I've already given my points on this.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Ending a book with cliffhangers is something very normal in a story that is set up in multiple books. Having an expanded story, it is very difficult that all the stories will have a finished ending or end (all of them) in cliffhangers. The main characters from the Northern storyline, such as Jon, ended in a cliffhanger, which is satisfying in my opinion. Let's not forget that Asha's story which is with Stannis' also ends in one so I don't see the point in saying the book has a flaw there because of those "incomplete" arcs.

I'm of the opinion that books in a series should be able to stand on their own. Look at GOT, ACOK, and ASOS. All of these are designed with the dramatic structure. It's the same with Harry Potter. Each book stood on its own and gave the storylines a complete arc.

 

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Well, as I said, not all the main characters had incomplete arcs. Jon had a complete arc, Bran had a good one, Arya's arc is "so complete considering these books are the middle ones, Cersei is complete also, as it is Jaime's. Danys' I'd say it's kind of compelte, her story in Meereen is completed. On the other hand, we see that Sansa's, Tyrion's might not be considered completed for the book, but the others, they are in my opinion.

Seconday Characters that are expanded: Oh, I like secondary characters, as many readers do. So I am afraid can't find a counterargument to the non-focused arcs for the main ones because I actually think it's a refreshing thing. More when we take into account than in this story since Ned's death nothing is what one seems, main characters might have a shorter story than secondary ones, who might have bigger roles in the ending, while being expanded in the books from the middle, that are the ones we are talking about. In fact, I think the show made a mistake giving so many importance to the "main" ones in the latter seasons instead of getting the things more balanced like in the books.

As for that it takes a lot of time to finish the books, that's something all the readers regret, but I would not like a simple version of the story, and that's why I think the adaptation should be better, like the books.

Finishing with less quality is not always better than not finishing at proper time with much more quality. However, I'll say than if the next book is not published before s7 I'll be disappointed as a reader.

Jon's arc ended at the climax, Bran's didn't have a climax, Sansa didn't have a climax, Cersei may have had a completed arc, Jaime didn't have a climax, or if he did, it was a weak one, Dany may have had a completed arc.

I have no problem with secondary characters, but I believe that their sole purpose should be to support the main characters. Martin gave way too many secondary characters their own storylines and forgot to focus more on the main characters.

Well, I consider the show to be of high quality, but let's say I think it's terrible. If the terrible show finished it's story and the books did not, I would consider the show to be better. After all, a story without an ending isn't a story.

 

[Dragon in the North]

 

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

You probably don't understand it because he's not doing it. He's not dragging Stannis' downfall, he's just delivering Stannis' arc (he happens to have one in the books) in a way that seems natural and fit for the setting and the tone and the spirit of the entire series.

Actually it wouldn't make sense narratively, because then the entire Stannis' arc would be practically pointless. Narrative doesn't mean simply rushing the shortest path from point A in the story to point B in the story. It's much more important that characters and arcs have a purpose in the story. And Stannis' arc requires a closing that definitely isn't him dying in the coming battle with the Boltons because Ramsay sent his "20 good men" to destroy Stannis' army's supplies.

Except it's obvious what his fate is going to be. Stannis brought Melisandre to Jon, the true Azor Ahai. What more is there for him to do?

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

Except it's obvious what his fate is going to be. Stannis brought Melisandre to Jon, the true Azor Ahai. What more is there for him to do?

That's s very simplistic way of describing Stannis' arc. You think GRRM spent all those words on Stannis story and character development for the sole reason that he could bring Melisandre to Jon? Well, then I must say that I do disagree greatly with your understanding and interpretation of ASOIAF. And no, it's not obvious what Stannis fate is going to be, perhaps he will unite the North and not Jon. Perhaps he'll sacrifice himself in the most noble way not die in some ignoble death. 

[Dragon in the North]

3 minutes ago, teej6 said:

That's s very simplistic way of describing Stannis' arc. You think GRRM spent all those words on Stannis story and character development for the sole reason that he could bring Melisandre to Jon? Well, then I must say that I do disagree greatly with your understanding and interpretation of ASOIAF. And no, it's not obvious what Stannis fate is going to be, perhaps he will unite the North and not Jon. Perhaps he'll sacrifice himself in the most noble way not die in some ignoble death. 

I guess we'll see. Or we won't. It depends on the author.

[teej6]

36 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

The one time Martin decides to take his editor's advice . I agree that Stannis's arc, along with Theon's, was the best in ADWD, up to the point where it simply ended. I will forever think that leaving out the Battle of Winterfell was a mistake. Without it, Stannis's arc in Dance was incomplete.

Exposition, in the case of dramatic structure, is simply an introduction. 

Again, GRRM's expansive world is not a valid argument because it was his choice to expand the scope of his world, dedicating time away from the main characters. I found that the characters were lazily introduced and feel out of place in the story that they are in. I used to have faith in Martin's writing ability, but that faith evaporated after Feast and Dance. I no longer believe he'll be able to finish this story.

As for the bolded, to many show watchers, this is the most complex show on television. A lot of them still don't remember all of the characters, so I don't think D&D overdid it with exposition. And sexposition stopped after season 2.

The blizzard vanished because of Shireen's sacrifice. That was the whole point. The 20 good men bit wasn't the best way to end Stannis, but I didn't find it to be as bad as a lot of other people did. I found Stannis's downfall to be quite interesting and loved his last words. "Go on, do your duty." Perfect words for Stannis Baratheon.

 

I've already given my points on this.

Well I don't know how you came to the conclusion that GRRM does not take his editor's advice. And most readers including myself do not read the books as stand alone books, instead we are reading all 7 books as one whole story. So if Stannis story ended as a cliffhanger in ADWD, I know I'll read and enjoy it in the next book. 

As for exposition on the show, perhaps you are right and for those who have not read the books it becomes a bit hard to keep up with the various names and houses. But still D&D uses more exposition than required and dumbs down to the viewers in several instances. 

So you are saying we are supposed to believe that the blizzard and all that snow melted because of Shireen's sacrifice? Ok say I agree with that explanation, how do you explain how close the Bolton army was or why such a seasoned commander such as Stannis wouldn't have had scouts scoping the enemy's terrain and army? And really 20 good men!! That's just lazy and bad writing. 

[Cas Stark]

35 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

Except it's obvious what his fate is going to be. Stannis brought Melisandre to Jon, the true Azor Ahai. What more is there for him to do?

If that's all that there was to Stannis story, and he loses to the Boltons, then that would be a hugely disappointing storyline, that was mostly pointless.  Sure, he's never going to be King and rule Westeros, he's not AA, but him simply dying a failure, having achieved nothing but getting Mel to Jon, that would be a waste to me.

[Dragon in the North]

24 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Well I don't know how you came to the conclusion that GRRM does not take his editor's advice. And most readers including myself do not read the books as stand alone books, instead we are reading all 7 books as one whole story. So if Stannis story ended as a cliffhanger in ADWD, I know I'll read and enjoy it in the next book. 

As for exposition on the show, perhaps you are right and for those who have not read the books it becomes a bit hard to keep up with the various names and houses. But still D&D uses more exposition than required and dumbs down to the viewers in several instances. 

So you are saying we are supposed to believe that the blizzard and all that snow melted because of Shireen's sacrifice? Ok say I agree with that explanation, how do you explain how close the Bolton army was or why such a seasoned commander such as Stannis wouldn't have had scouts scoping the enemy's terrain and army? And really 20 good men!! That's just lazy and bad writing. 

Sorry, many of us assume this given the bloat in Feast and Dance. We think that any decent editor would have wanted to trim the fat. We don't have any proof, though.

I noticed the show used too much exposition in its first season, but I thought they improved greatly as each season passed.

Yes, 20 good men wasn't the best way to end Stannis's arc, but I don't hate it as much as many of you do. And I have to assume that Stannis's terrible military decisions once he arrived at Winterfell were due to his grief over the death of his wife and daughter. That's one of the reasons why I've enjoyed Show Stannis to his book counterpart. He's always seemed more human and capable of emotion, whereas Book Stannis was a little too robotic for my taste.

[Dragon in the North]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

If that's all that there was to Stannis story, and he loses to the Boltons, then that would be a hugely disappointing storyline, that was mostly pointless.  Sure, he's never going to be King and rule Westeros, he's not AA, but him simply dying a failure, having achieved nothing but getting Mel to Jon, that would be a waste to me.

I know this would be upsetting to a lot of Stannis fans, but I have to ask, how is this any different from Robb?

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

I know this would be upsetting to a lot of Stannis fans, but I have to ask, how is this any different from Robb?

I'm not sure any of the Starks except Rickon could be said to have been a dead end, since the story started out with them at the center.   

[Meera of Tarth]

11 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Sorry, many of us assume this given the bloat in Feast and Dance. We think that any decent editor would have wanted to trim the fat. We don't have any proof, though.

I noticed the show used too much exposition in its first season, but I thought they improved greatly as each season passed.

Yes, 20 good men wasn't the best way to end Stannis's arc, but I don't hate it as much as many of you do. And I have to assume that Stannis's terrible military decisions once he arrived at Winterfell were due to his grief over the death of his wife and daughter. That's one of the reasons why I've enjoyed Show Stannis to his book counterpart. He's always seemed more human and capable of emotion, whereas Book Stannis was a little too robotic for my taste.

the pain for Shireen? Really? He decided to kill her as a military DECISION in order to defeat the Boltons, and those 2 deaths happened AFTER wf. You are saying this as if Shireen and his wife had died in other circumstances (veeery different ones!) and long before they happened!. So I can't buy that.

[Dragon in the North]

2 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

the pain for Shireen? Really? He decided to kill her as a military DECISION in order to defeat the Boltons, and those 2 deaths happened AFTER wf. You are saying this as if Shireen and his wife had died in other circumstances (veeery different ones!) and long before they happened!. So I can't buy that.

Maybe Book Stannis could burn Shireen and walk away unscathed, but Show Stannis truly cared about his family. He didn't burn Shireen with malicious intent, he burned her because he thought it was the only way forward. When he attacked Winterfell, he definitely wasn't in the right frame of mind. As I said, that is why I prefer Show Stannis to Book Stannis. He's a human, not a robot.

[StepStark]

13 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I know this would be upsetting to a lot of Stannis fans, but I have to ask, how is this any different from Robb?

That would be like comparing Sandor Clegane with Oberyn Martel. Just because Oberyn died shockingly and sooner than readers expected, it doesn't mean that Sandor's arc should end the same way. They are not equally important for the entire series.

As a character Robb is simply not as important as Stannis. Although his death had a huge emotional impact, Robb is a side character in a storyline whose main character is Cat (and her story is definitely not over). On the other hand, Stannis is among the most important characters, which is established in the very first chapter he appears in. Not necessarily main, but most important characters. His importance is established even before he appears in the story, and it doesn't look like Martin plans to waste all that in the same way as D&D.

[Dragon in the North]

30 minutes ago, StepStark said:

That would be like comparing Sandor Clegane with Oberyn Martel. Just because Oberyn died shockingly and sooner than readers expected, it doesn't mean that Sandor's arc should end the same way. They are not equally important for the entire series.

As a character Robb is simply not as important as Stannis. Although his death had a huge emotional impact, Robb is a side character in a storyline whose main character is Cat (and her story is definitely not over). On the other hand, Stannis is among the most important characters, which is established in the very first chapter he appears in. Not necessarily main, but most important characters. His importance is established even before he appears in the story, and it doesn't look like Martin plans to waste all that in the same way as D&D.

I don't see any indication that Stannis is more important than Robb. Yes, he introduces us to the Lord of Light and the Azor Ahai prophecy, but I don't believe that prophecy applies to him, which makes him expendable. He's certainly not one of the most important characters. 

[The Bear Who Knocks]

22 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I personally believe that Stannis's story in the books is over and that he has nothing left to tribute. He is the false messiah after all. His story was never going to end well. I think that the parallels between Jon and Ramsay are impossible to ignore and I can see Jon leading an army against him if Stannis has fallen. I could be wrong, though.

I can't really believe that when Season 6 showed us that Jon, Sansa and the rest of the northern story was a copy pasted watered down version of what we got with Stannis et al. in ADWD except that they get to the battle. BTW if Stannis is the one to sacrifice Shireen then in the book he cant possibly die and be as pathetic as he was in S5 in the battle to come. Plus i'm pretty sure that S6 showed us that Theon, Sansa, Brienne and Asha have completely different stories in the future books since they're all no where near their show counterparts locations or stories.

[Meera of Tarth]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

Maybe Book Stannis could burn Shireen and walk away unscathed, but Show Stannis truly cared about his family. He didn't burn Shireen with malicious intent, he burned her because he thought it was the only way forward. When he attacked Winterfell, he definitely wasn't in the right frame of mind. As I said, that is why I prefer Show Stannis to Book Stannis. He's a human, not a robot.

of course he didn't enjoy burning his daughter, but that doesn't change the fact he did it. Just for the record, if the books do exactly the same I won't like it. (and I would probably not enjoy it regardless it is well explained due to the nature of the scene).

but the show wanted to play with the viewer's feelings offering us, for the very first time, that he cared for his daughter (with the hug scene) and then he was qyickly persuaded to sacrifice her for the cause by Mel. He even lied to Shireen. They should have avoided the hug scene (it only caused confusion and also aMore cheap SHOKING moment as usual) or either make anyine else (Mel) burn her.

the only thing that thy did well was Selyse's reaction. To me it was not shocking since I had always thought that she was not totally converted into R'hllor and she was clearly suffering from a mental illness (like being absorbed by a cult) and until she saw the reality with someone she really cared about deep inside she didn't see what she shad believed was bad.

more scened woulf have been needed with Stannis to make his decision compelling, not to mention that the reasons that led to this were not portrayed in a convincing way, and these includes the amount of snow and also the fact he is quickly convinced by Mel that there is only one option.

Having said all that, being in the show or in the books, that doesn't make Stannis or Selyse good people, even if what I have told had beeb portrayed correctly.

[Dragon in the North]

3 hours ago, The Bear Who Knocks said:

I can't really believe that when Season 6 showed us that Jon, Sansa and the rest of the northern story was a copy pasted watered down version of what we got with Stannis et al. in ADWD except that they get to the battle. BTW if Stannis is the one to sacrifice Shireen then in the book he cant possibly die and be as pathetic as he was in S5 in the battle to come. Plus i'm pretty sure that S6 showed us that Theon, Sansa, Brienne and Asha have completely different stories in the future books since they're all no where near their show counterparts locations or stories.

I could see Jon leading an army of wildlings and a fragment of Stannis's shattered army against the Boltons. They'll be losing when Littlefinger and Sansa ride in with the Knights of the Vale, or something along those lines. And I think Shireen will be burned by Melisandre in the books, without Stannis's consent. As you pointed out, the logistics of Stannis burning her don't add up. I could be wrong, though, and Martin may take the story in another direction.