Jump to content
Katerine459

[SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Kandrax said:

In show defence, 100% adaptation is impossible.

I really wish people stopped using strawman arguments.

Edited by Rhodan

Share this post


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

You actually proved my point because if that's what you consider absurd then really nothing is truly absurd in the books.

The Iron Born are not laughable. Maybe they are to you, but that's another matter. They are not objectively laughable. Nothing makes them laughable or unrealistic. All one has to remember are the vikings, whose entire culture obviously served as model for IB.

They work because you take the vikings as model and template them over the Ironborn. The Ironborn are a very special issue and from the description alone ... they are not functional as a society. It only works because of the things your mind does in the background without GRRM ever mentioning it. Of course that also applies to every other society in fantasy books. the IB however are a very special issue as they comicly overdraw the vikings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

They work because you take the vikings as model and template them over the Ironborn. The Ironborn are a very special issue and from the description alone ... they are not functional as a society. It only works because of the things your mind does in the background without GRRM ever mentioning it. Of course that also applies to every other society in fantasy books. the IB however are a very special issue as they comicly overdraw the vikings. 

I'm sorry but kind of argument is this? What does ti even mean "they are not functional as a society"? Why would they be not functional? What is so dysfunctional about them? They pretty much are just like societies in actual history that relied primarily on looting on seas. Vikings are the most well known example but they're not the only one given how wide-spread the piracy was throughout history. And why are they less functional than Dothraki for example? Or Huns from real history? The only difference is that they raid at sea, and I think that GRRM perfectly captured the mentality of sea raiders.

And no, GRRM doesn't have to explain everything. Why would he? What authors do that? That's absurd request, sorry to say. It'd be absurd even for universes like Middle Earth, that are in no way sustainable or realistic. In a story like ASOIAF that draws much more from real history than from legends and myths, what's important is that nothing is unrealistic or unsustainable, and that no vital information is missing. If based on just average knowledge about real history models you can easily deduce yourself how fictional society functions, then it's not author's failure by any stretch of imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, StepStark said:

They pretty much are just like societies in actual history that relied primarily on looting on seas. Vikings are the most well known example

You should seriously update your viking knowledge. 

Share this post


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

You should seriously update your viking knowledge. 

You should seriously elaborate what about Iron Born is unrealistic.

Share this post


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

You should seriously elaborate what about Iron Born is unrealistic.

StepStark, usually when fans start to discuss what they DON´T like about ASOIAF, they mention something along "dumb external cultures", meaning primarily Iron Born and Dothraki (and possibly Slaver´s Bay, but that is slightly more complicated matter). Mainstream Westerosi stories feel frequently almost like normal history literature, but when these nations are projected they seem to be dumb muscles who lack that certain level of sophistication that real world martial cultures need for survival. I don´t know details about problems with specific IB realism, but it sometimes revolves about their continuing pirat practice and maybe very existence, when their natural target is giant and politicaly unified Westeros and sometimes the logistics of the piracy.

That being said I don´t actually mind Iron Born that much. I have maybe problem with Dothraki and certain aspects of Westeros. And of course think show´s writing is much, much worse.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rhodan said:

I don´t know details about problems with specific IB realism, but it sometimes revolves about their continuing pirat practice and maybe very existence, when their natural target is giant and politicaly unified Westeros and sometimes the logistics of the piracy.

And yet their natural target was never giant and politically unified Westeros, because such a Westeros didn't exist before Aegon Targaryen and when he formed a single realm Iron Islands were part of that realm.

The logistics of the piracy is not something I'm expert of, but even I know that societies and nations which lived primarily of piracy existed in history. That doesn't mean that there was nothing besides piracy, because Vikings were a complicated culture, but as soon as they couldn't raid others with ease any more they inevitably declined.

In any case, I don't expect from GRRM to write all the details about every society depicted in the books. It's an epic fantasy, not a history textbook. He's given readers enough so they can understand everything that is necessary for the understanding of the story and the characters. For example, the most important side of IB mentality is that they lack traditional discipline because, as GRRM explains, each captain is actually the king of his ship, and that's pretty accurate historically.

Could GRRM write more details about IB? He probably could, given how knowledgeable he is about actual history, he probably could detail their economy (or whatever passes for `economy` there) bu modeling it after actual Vikings economy, but what would be the point of that? Their economy has no impact on the story whatsoever and no impact on characters. Economy of the entire realm plays the part and that's why it is depicted, but that's another matter.

I really see no problem with the Dothraki either. They very much are like Huns. It appears that Drogo's actually modeled after Attila.

I'll repeat, the most important thing is that nothing stands out as unrealistic, and that enough is explained for cultures and characters to be understood correctly. By that measure, I don't see what GRRM did wrong.

Share this post


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

You should seriously elaborate what about Iron Born is unrealistic.

As I already said they are not functional as a people. Vikings are not people but rather the pirates of the early-high medieval period. They are not the inhabitants of scandinavia, rather a selection of them. 

The Ironborn on the other hand are an island nation, where every man has to rape, pillage and plunder. And that is not working, neither in comparison to the vikings/scandinavians nor in numbers. Medieval societies in general cannot support such a large militarisation amount (over a longer period of time). It is simply not working. 

Plus on top of that you have that entire plundering nation that relies on plundering to even survive (because they are not scandinavians) during a period of 300 years "peace" in Westeros. 

But that has been brought up in the past over and over again. 

 

The only way they function is as a meme or a comical overdrawn people, where plausability does not matter. And I can live with that. It's perfectly fine to do that. I'm ok with it. I'm sure Tolkien's orcs also do not work as a people, where everything is done under a whip. But few man would claim Tolkien's orcs to be realistic.

Edited by SirArthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

As I already said they are not functional as a people. Vikings are not people but rather the pirates of the early-high medieval period. They are not the inhabitants of scandinavia, rather a selection of them. 

The Ironborn on the other hand are an island nation, where every man has to rape, pillage and plunder. And that is not working, neither in comparison to the vikings/scandinavians nor in numbers. Medieval societies in general cannot support such a large militarisation amount (over a longer period of time). It is simply not working. 

Plus on top of that you have that entire plundering nation that relies on plundering to even survive (because they are not scandinavians) during a period of 300 years "peace" in Westeros. 

But that has been brought up in the past over and over again. 

 

The only way they function is as a meme or a comical overdrawn people, where plausability does not matter. And I can live with that. It's perfectly fine to do that. I'm ok with it. I'm sure Tolkien's orcs also do not work as a people, where everything is done under a whip. But few man would claim Tolkien's orcs to be realistic.

 

 The bolded is absolutely not true. Not all Ironborn are raiders. That's like saying all Northerners marched South with Robb. 

 And anyway, raiding is the only form of resource gathering available to them after being beaten back from the Riverland strongholds after crossing Aegon. They had lands before, and many want lands again (think of Asha's idea for peace and wanting Sea Dragon Point.) They're also not all bloody minded (think of the Harlaws).

 (In fact It would be correct to think of the Ironborn more like Scandinavians,  and their army like Vikings. )

 And if anything, AFFC introduces complexity to their society, because before that, all we saw was Balon Greyjoy's need for the 'Old Way', which is really just a rallying cry of those disillusioned by the way they had power removed from them 3 centuries earlier. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

As I already said they are not functional as a people. Vikings are not people but rather the pirates of the early-high medieval period. They are not the inhabitants of scandinavia, rather a selection of them. 

The Ironborn on the other hand are an island nation, where every man has to rape, pillage and plunder. And that is not working, neither in comparison to the vikings/scandinavians nor in numbers. Medieval societies in general cannot support such a large militarisation amount (over a longer period of time). It is simply not working. 

Plus on top of that you have that entire plundering nation that relies on plundering to even survive (because they are not scandinavians) during a period of 300 years "peace" in Westeros. 

But that has been brought up in the past over and over again. 

 

The only way they function is as a meme or a comical overdrawn people, where plausability does not matter. And I can live with that. It's perfectly fine to do that. I'm ok with it. I'm sure Tolkien's orcs also do not work as a people, where everything is done under a whip. But few man would claim Tolkien's orcs to be realistic.

You should seriously update your Iron Islands knowledge.

In the very first Iron Islands chapter in ACOK it is explained that islands are very rich with iron, tin and lead. Also it's explained that trade is very developed in the islands, as expected for a seafaring people. The ship that carries Theon to the Pyke is a merchant ship and when they land the captain offers numerous goods in exchange for metals. In the harbor there are other merchant ships from far away. Theon also talks about fishermen, miners and even farmers, and admittedly they all consider their lives miserable but they can obviously live off of them. It's also said that while practically there are no horses on the islands they do have sheep and goats.

Comparing all that to orcs is simply ridiculous. Saying that "every man has to rape pillage and plunder" is simply wrong and it goes against the text. Iron Islands are very sustainable as presented in the novels. Without going too much into details, because why would he, GRRM gave enough about Iron Islands so their sustainability is obvious. I wouldn't mind if he didn't, because I don't expect him to fully lay out each among his numerous societies and because average reader can easily fill in the blanks for himself, but in the case of Iron Islands he actually gave enough information about their way of life. I just wonder why would you choose to ignore it.

Share this post


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

As I already said they are not functional as a people. Vikings are not people but rather the pirates of the early-high medieval period. They are not the inhabitants of scandinavia, rather a selection of them. 

I was talking about Vikings as a culture. You don't have to nitpick my posts. When we talk about Huns, of course that it goes without saying that not all Huns were horseback warriors, but Huns are mostly remembered for their horseback warriors, just like Mongols too. Vikings are the main symbol of Scandinavian way of life in middle ages, just like Ironborn are mostly known for their sea raids, but that doesn't mean their societies weren't more complex than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Regular John Umber said:

 

 The bolded is absolutely not true. Not all Ironborn are raiders. That's like saying all Northerners marched South with Robb. 

 And anyway, raiding is the only form of resource gathering available to them after being beaten back from the Riverland strongholds after crossing Aegon. They had lands before, and many want lands again (think of Asha's idea for peace and wanting Sea Dragon Point.) They're also not all bloody minded (think of the Harlaws).

 (In fact It would be correct to think of the Ironborn more like Scandinavians,  and their army like Vikings. )

 And if anything, AFFC introduces complexity to their society, because before that, all we saw was Balon Greyjoy's need for the 'Old Way', which is really just a rallying cry of those disillusioned by the way they had power removed from them 3 centuries earlier. 

Yes, it's actually amazing how much GRRM explained about Iron Islands and yet people criticize him for writing them dysfunctional? Like, really? What is dysfunctional about Iron Islands? Unless "dysfunctional" means something very different, Iron Islands are anything but dysfunctional.

But I guess some people desperately need a reason to badmouth AFFC or maybe even the entire ASOIAF. Anything that could obscure the towering superiority of the book compared to the show, right?

Edited by StepStark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:26 PM, StepStark said:

You actually proved my point because if that's what you consider absurd then really nothing is truly absurd in the books.

The Iron Born are not laughable. Maybe they are to you, but that's another matter. They are not objectively laughable. Nothing makes them laughable or unrealistic. All one has to remember are the vikings, whose entire culture obviously served as model for IB. What is absurd about Euron? He may be under-explained, I don't think he is but some might disagree, but that's it. There is nothing objectively absurd about him except the dragon horn of course, but even that is only unrealistic but not absurd because in GRRM's world dragons do exist so it's not absurd for dragon horn to exist too. Ramsay is completely different case because he is detailed but there is nothing absurd about him either. He's a sadist who is actually very primitive and backward as he would be considering his upbringing, and when you combine sadism with that kind of primitivism you get someone like Ramsay, who differs from Joff only because Joff is also a sadist but he's not primitive.

Chance meetings happen in real life. As I said already, I think Tyrion had one chance meeting too many in ADWD but I can't say that it's a logical fallacy. There is nothing unrealistic about Littlefinger's plans because he actually doesn't have as many plans as some think. He's master in causing chaos but that's another thing entirely and yes there are people like that in real life too. Varys is someone who makes and follows plans, and that's why he has a partner like Illyrio, but LF is someone who specializes in stirring others and leading them to make mistakes. So far he was involved in one process that could be considered a plan, and that's Joff's murder. Sansa's marriage to Harry is the second one, but that one still needs to unravel and we'll see if it's successful or not.

I don't know what's wrong with Tyrion and Penny (other than their chance meeting). There is nothing absurd about the pacing of The Others plotline, simply because so far we have no idea what are they doing, what is their intention, do they even have one, and even who are they. Don't confuse the nonsense from the show with the books. The Other will obviously be the ultimate danger in the books and depending on how all that unravels we'll see if they were conveniently waiting for the sake of waiting (which is also not a terrible storytelling crime), or Martin will deliver some more sophisticated explanation, but the success or failure of that story depends on how will Martin deliver the final act of the story, and not on how long it took The Others to invade The 7 Kingdoms.

About realm's reaction to the threat, at this point literally all of the leaders in Westeros have more pressing matters (from their perspective) to deal with. I really don't see what is unrealistic about that, considering that in real life rarely any government in the world even thinks seriously of the global disasters that threaten the entire world or large parts of it.

And just to tell you, I've been down this road before. Maybe even with you. What would probably happen now is that you'd bring more and more examples of what you find absurd and I'd fell obliged to respond to them. If that's the case I ask you not to do that, but to stay on the examples you picked already. You picked them, not me. They should be prime examples of what you find absurd. So if you disagree with my "defense"of those examples please state your points, but please don't bring new examples because there is no end to that and the discussion will loose any sense.

Now of course, if you think all this is too much off topic, that's also fine and we can end the discussion here, but I don't see that it would be too big a problem considering that the books are obviously crucial in analyzing shortcomings of the show.

It is clear the Iron Born are modelled on the Vikings.  No one is going to deny that.  What makes no sense is having that societal view in Westeros.  The Vikings thrived during the early middle ages (often referred to as the dark ages) and then the society changed (as did all of Europe) when the middle ages truly got going.  In Westeros the Iron Born are stuck in the past, literally centuries behind the rest of Westeros.  That's why it is ludicrous.

Euron's personality is what is absurd about Euron.  And his appearance.  He is a comedy villain.

Nothing wrong with Littlefinger's plans.  Maybe.  It's the outcomes.  Unless Littlefinger turns out to be an avatar (possible I guess) then what is ludicrous is how he always manages to pull them off successfully.  It's pretty certain that had the story played out in the books he was the voice in Joffrey's ear telling him not to spare Ned and he would have gotten away with it all if it hadn't been for that pesky Bran.

I've discussed the Others pacing and the average reaction of the realm to them ad nauseam so won't get into that here again.

Chance meetings do happen.  But so frequently on a continent that's meant to be the size of Canada?  And that's not including the chance meetings outside of Westeros.  Fate is what could explain away the chance meetings or intentional set ups by the Gods.  But those reasons would be very lame.  In terms of pure coincidence, it's already stretched well beyond the realms of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 7:24 AM, Rhodan said:

I really wish people stopped using strawman arguments.

Why is that a strawman argument?  It's pretty much a fact.  No show is going to be 100% faithful.  The real problem AGOT had was that it drew from strong source material up to a point.  Then that source material became weaker and then finally there was no source material at all.

Someone else nailed it elsewhere.  GRRM should have been honest with everyone and admitted he was never finishing the books and then freed himself up to write for the show to make sure it was as close to his vision as possible.  Then we could have had the best of both worlds.  Instead we are left with a TV show that isn't going to reach the heights in story telling that it should have and a book series that will never be completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:29 AM, StepStark said:

Yes, it's actually amazing how much GRRM explained about Iron Islands and yet people criticize him for writing them dysfunctional? Like, really? What is dysfunctional about Iron Islands? Unless "dysfunctional" means something very different, Iron Islands are anything but dysfunctional.

But I guess some people desperately need a reason to badmouth AFFC or maybe even the entire ASOIAF. Anything that could obscure the towering superiority of the book compared to the show, right?

It's not a competition.  To the vast majority of people it is not one or the other.  We know you hate the TV show and you think it is awful, we get it.  We know you love the books to the point where you think they're are literary masterpieces and almost flawless.  We get that too.  What I personally don't get is why you watch the TV show and then get into these large polarising arguments on this forum.  If you don't like the show, then fine.  Don't watch it and certainly don't waste your life discussing it!

The vast majority of people have well rounded enough opinions to be able to like the show and the books, to like one but not the other, to like the books and the show but see flaws in both etc.  And you know something else?  Most people who have read the books and seen the show will freely admit the books are better.  In almost all cases books are always better than their TV or movie adaptation.  What is fairly unique about AGOT is that it started as a fairly faithful adaptation and then had to go completely off book because there were no books to adapt anymore (and even where they were books plotlines weren't resolved so couldn't be used or had to be amended).

I can only speak for myself but speaking as someone who first read AGOT in 1998, who obsessed about it for years, who pre-AFFC (and even to a lesser extent pre-ADWD) tried to get as many friends, relatives and strangers as possible to read the books and who would tell any show watcher that would listen to me that they needed to read the books because they are so much better than the show.......I am just glad that I am going to get some sort of closure to the overall tale.  Because let's be honest, we're never going to get it from the books.  I'm just sad, and a little bitter, that it's going to be a shell of what it could have been.  But then having seen the state of ADWD and the TWOW sample chapters, maybe it is not such a bad thing after all.

Share this post


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

Why is that a strawman argument?  It's pretty much a fact.  No show is going to be 100% faithful.  The real problem AGOT had was that it drew from strong source material up to a point.  Then that source material became weaker and then finally there was no source material at all.

Someone else nailed it elsewhere.  GRRM should have been honest with everyone and admitted he was never finishing the books and then freed himself up to write for the show to make sure it was as close to his vision as possible.  Then we could have had the best of both worlds.  Instead we are left with a TV show that isn't going to reach the heights in story telling that it should have and a book series that will never be completed.

Nobody complains that it isn´t 100% faithful. Some people see it is inherently bad. That´s what makes "100% remark" strawman. The seeds were obvious from the first two seasons. Again as a person who doesn´t really care if the books are completed or not... Well I can  I can get frustration of some people for sure, but it couldn´t matter to me less that we get story´s ending this way.  

Share this post


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

The Vikings thrived during the early middle ages (often referred to as the dark ages) and then the society changed (as did all of Europe) when the middle ages truly got going.  In Westeros the Iron Born are stuck in the past, literally centuries behind the rest of Westeros.  That's why it is ludicrous

 

 Yes, that's the point. They're stuck in the past, because they had their lands (the Riverlands) taken from them by Aegon. The way they got those lands? By acting like they're trying to act now. It's a normal thing to cling to the past when the present sucks.

 

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Euron's personality is what is absurd about Euron.  And his appearance.  He is a comedy villain.

 

  We don't know everything about Euron yet, but it seems to me that there's a lot of 'cautionary tales' about the use of Magic in ASOIAF. Euron has been corrupted by magic, (I think it will turn out that it's been happening since he was very young, but that's all speculation). Much of the villainy in this story - the worst of the worst - are about corruption by power or magic (or both, as they seem linked).

 

 Take Ramsay - he's a genuine psychopath, and if he wasn't such a useful tool for Roose, would not have any power. But, he is, and he does, so we get to see a genuinely psychotic human being in power because his father's need for power is so great. Who is the true villain - the man who hunts women and skins men alive, or the leader who lets him? That's why the Ramsay story is intriguing.

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

I've discussed the Others pacing and the average reaction of the realm to them ad nauseam so won't get into that here again.

 

 Well that statement makes it seem as though you know what the Others are even doing. Are you assuming that they're just making their way to the wall? You don't know that. You don't know what they're doing and why. to say they're moving slowly is ludicrous because you don't know the end goal.

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Chance meetings do happen.  But so frequently on a continent that's meant to be the size of Canada?  And that's not including the chance meetings outside of Westeros.  Fate is what could explain away the chance meetings or intentional set ups by the Gods.  But those reasons would be very lame.  In terms of pure coincidence, it's already stretched well beyond the realms of possibility.

 Remember that this is a universe where the predominant (only?) magical power is the ability to control things with your mind. It's completely consistent that there should seem to be not just one external control on people but many.

 

 In ASOIAF there are no gods. There's just people with an ability to control the actions (thoughts) of others. It's literally the whole point.

 

3 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Nothing wrong with Littlefinger's plans.  Maybe.  It's the outcomes.  Unless Littlefinger turns out to be an avatar (possible I guess) then what is ludicrous is how he always manages to pull them off successfully.  It's pretty certain that had the story played out in the books he was the voice in Joffrey's ear telling him not to spare Ned and he would have gotten away with it all if it hadn't been for that pesky Bran.

 

 Has everything gone Littlefinger's way? Of course not. If it had, he wouldn't be sitting having to appease the Lords Declarant, literally gambling with his life, right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 8:21 AM, Ser Gareth said:

It is clear the Iron Born are modelled on the Vikings.  No one is going to deny that.  What makes no sense is having that societal view in Westeros.  The Vikings thrived during the early middle ages (often referred to as the dark ages) and then the society changed (as did all of Europe) when the middle ages truly got going.  In Westeros the Iron Born are stuck in the past, literally centuries behind the rest of Westeros.  That's why it is ludicrous.

Why? Because huge realms don't tolerate differences between their parts? I have to say that it's a strange statement given how diverse real realms were and are. For example in modern Italy there are huge differences between north and south in almost everything. Also while I've never been to USA it is often said that the south parts have much different mentality than the rest and that they are "stuck in the past" to the point that last year there was a big dispute over all those monuments from the civil war.

And also it's not accurate that Ironborn are "centuries behind the rest of Westeros" because they actually have no technological disadvantage. They are different from the rest in a way Dorne is different from the rest. And also The North which is maybe more different than any of them.

On 5/17/2018 at 8:21 AM, Ser Gareth said:

Euron's personality is what is absurd about Euron.  And his appearance.  He is a comedy villain.

What is absurd about Euron's personality? I'm not sure we even know enough about his personality to find him absurd. And his... appearance? Really? Appearance in textual medium is problematic? And what appearance is that?

On 5/17/2018 at 8:21 AM, Ser Gareth said:

Nothing wrong with Littlefinger's plans.  Maybe.  It's the outcomes.  Unless Littlefinger turns out to be an avatar (possible I guess) then what is ludicrous is how he always manages to pull them off successfully.  It's pretty certain that had the story played out in the books he was the voice in Joffrey's ear telling him not to spare Ned and he would have gotten away with it all if it hadn't been for that pesky Bran.

You're confusing the show with the books to justify your claims. Sorry to say but that method hardly proves anything.

On 5/17/2018 at 8:21 AM, Ser Gareth said:

Chance meetings do happen.  But so frequently on a continent that's meant to be the size of Canada?  And that's not including the chance meetings outside of Westeros.  Fate is what could explain away the chance meetings or intentional set ups by the Gods.  But those reasons would be very lame.  In terms of pure coincidence, it's already stretched well beyond the realms of possibility.

It isn't really. While it is unlikely that for example someone like Tyrion meets Jorah and Penny in the span of few days, it isn't impossible. There is nothing "beyond the realms of possibility" in chance meetings in ASOIAF. The size of the continent doesn't really matter because what matters is the flow of the people. It's more likely to meet someone in the inn at the crossroads or at some other point on the Kingsroad, than in a tavern in King's Landing. And also, there aren't that many chance meetings in ASOIAF. Tyrion is the champion here with three (Cat, Jorah, Penny), but in all three cases everyone involved was logically present at the sight of the meeting and GRRM didn't have to do any gymnastics to explain how someone ended up precisely there. Actually I have to take that back a little, because Penny can be seen as such a case and her story up until the meeting with Tyrion really seems a little stretched, but on the other hand I'm not sure we need more detailed account of her past whereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 8:21 AM, Ser Gareth said:

Nothing wrong with Littlefinger's plans.  Maybe.  It's the outcomes.  Unless Littlefinger turns out to be an avatar (possible I guess) then what is ludicrous is how he always manages to pull them off successfully.

One more thing about this - you're forgetting that Littlefinger first offered the alliance to Ned but Ned refused, and only then Littlefinger turned to Cersei. So was it some Littlefinger's plan that realized? Of course not, he was adapting his moves to the situation and to other players' moves. That's what he's doing all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 8:35 AM, Ser Gareth said:

What is fairly unique about AGOT is that it started as a fairly faithful adaptation and then had to go completely off book because there were no books to adapt anymore (and even where they were books plotlines weren't resolved so couldn't be used or had to be amended).

This is also not correct because D&D started to diverge long before they ran out of books. Show lovers keep forgetting Talisa for example, because there is no reason for that change except that D&D liked it better than they liked the version from the books.

Or what about Cersei's infamous firstborn who died an infant? That's episode two! Not only that they had some reason to include it, but also it only created logical problems later on, with the prophecy.

There are many examples like these two from early seasons of the show, which prove that D&D didn't have to go off the books. They chose to do so. That fact and the end result speak a lot about their competence and sincerity.

On 5/17/2018 at 8:35 AM, Ser Gareth said:

I can only speak for myself but speaking as someone who first read AGOT in 1998, who obsessed about it for years, who pre-AFFC (and even to a lesser extent pre-ADWD) tried to get as many friends, relatives and strangers as possible to read the books and who would tell any show watcher that would listen to me that they needed to read the books because they are so much better than the show.......I am just glad that I am going to get some sort of closure to the overall tale.  Because let's be honest, we're never going to get it from the books.  I'm just sad, and a little bitter, that it's going to be a shell of what it could have been.  But then having seen the state of ADWD and the TWOW sample chapters, maybe it is not such a bad thing after all.

If GRRM's closure looks anything like what happened in the show in the last 2-3 seasons, he better not finish the books because he'd just ruin the story for good. It's highly unlikely that his closure is so stupid because nothing in the books so far even resembles the absurdity of the show, but if that sadly is the case then better leave it unfinished than publishing all that nonsense D&D put in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×