Jump to content
Katerine459

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

Recommended Posts

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 1:43 PM, StepStark said:

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.

Littlefinger offered an alliance but was always going to betray Ned.  That was obvious even from my first reading 20 years ago.  The last thing the likes of Littlefinger wants is someone like a Stannis or Eddard ruling the realm.  It's why he set off the war of the Five Kings in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 1:55 PM, StepStark said:

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.

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.

That's why I said it was a "fairly" faithful adaptation.  No adaptation was going to be 100% faithful.  I also think it is a good thing when a show attempts to change things a little.  Few people want something to be exactly the same as the book they've read.  They still want to be kept on their toes.  As for Talisa, she wasn't a bad change and it certainly heightened the impact of the Red Wedding past what it was even in the books.  Ultimately the change was minor to the overall tale.

Cersei's infant was clearly a clumsy bread trail for viewers.  I agree it wasn't required because their incest is discovered so early on in the show anyway.

I think you're probably right about GRRM and the books.  As the quality of storytelling has declined so massively in AFFC and ADWD, it probably is best if it goes unfinished.  Which it almost certainly will anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

  As for Talisa, she wasn't a bad change and it certainly heightened the impact of the Red Wedding past what it was even in the books.  Ultimately the change was minor to the overall tale.

No, it made pointless shift in themes, it made Robb incredibly stupider, it was terribly predicatble dumb adaptation move (forcing romance where it doesn´t belong) and it was horibly written anyway.

Edited by Rhodan

Share this post


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

No, it made pointless shift in themes, it made Robb incredibly stupider, it was terribly predicatble dumb adaptation move (forcing romance where it doesn´t belong) and it was horibly written anyway.

To this day I still don't understand why she was from Volantis. 

Share this post


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

To this day I still don't understand why she was from Volantis. 

I guess they wanted exotic foreigner with worldviews that might be closer to modern audience.

 

BTW, other heavily modified storyline in Season 2 - Dany in Qarth - was also kinda sore to watch and think about. And yes, I know source material wasn´t very adaptable in this case. It is just funny to me  that this was the best they came up with.    

Share this post


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

I think you're probably right about GRRM and the books.  As the quality of storytelling has declined so massively in AFFC and ADWD, it probably is best if it goes unfinished.  Which it almost certainly will anyway.

You're twisting my words. What I said is that ASOIAF is best left unfinished if the remaining books even resemble what happened in the show. I have no problem if the remaining books are similar to AFFC and ADWD.

There is no decline in the quality of storytelling, AFFC and ADWD are not objectively worse than the first three books, but they obviously don't deliver any closure and some readers are understandably impatient to get closures so they attack AFFC and ADWD, but objectively nothing is wrong with those two books. If you really read ASOIAF as early as you say then you definitely remember the same reaction to ACOK which was initially seen as a letdown for same reasons and back then some readers also criticized GRRM for unnecessarily prolonging the story and adding a lot of fat, but as soon as ASOS came out it became obvious that ACOK was simply a transition book and a very good one at that.

What would definitely be decline is if any of the nonsense from the show ends up in the remaining books.

4 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Littlefinger offered an alliance but was always going to betray Ned.  That was obvious even from my first reading 20 years ago.  The last thing the likes of Littlefinger wants is someone like a Stannis or Eddard ruling the realm.  It's why he set off the war of the Five Kings in the first place.

Just like Littlefinger eventually betrayed Cersei. He'd betray anyone. But that's not what we discussed. We discussed his plans. "I'll first befriend and then betray anyone" isn't a plan. He didn't plan for Cersei to become the ruler of 7K, but when Ned refused his offer he adapted and acted.

4 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

That's why I said it was a "fairly" faithful adaptation.  No adaptation was going to be 100% faithful.

There is a huge difference between adaptation that tried to be faithful but can't be 100% faithful because of different medium or some other objective reason, and this "adaptation" we're discussing here. GOT never was a "fairly faithful" adaptation because right from the start D&D were changing things just because they wanted and for no good reason. Call it what you want but that is not a faithful adaptation, not even a fairly faithful adaptation.

5 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

Few people want something to be exactly the same as the book they've read.  They still want to be kept on their toes.

Sorry to say but this is a silly argument. You're not talking about adaptation but about fan fiction. Adaptation isn't supposed to be a different version of the original story. That's fan fiction, not adaptation. And please, I'm hearing about this "people want to be surprised" argument for years but it's just ridiculous. If you want to be surprised by adaptation I'm afraid you got the entire concept of reading/watching wrong. If you want to be surprised then you read or watch something new.

Adaptation is something else. Adapting a story means translating it to a new form as faithfully as possible, and not changing it for the sake of shocking the audience.

5 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

As for Talisa, she wasn't a bad change and it certainly heightened the impact of the Red Wedding past what it was even in the books.  Ultimately the change was minor to the overall tale.

As other people already said, Talisa was a terrible change. She didn't make any sense to begin with and she was written terribly. And no, she didn't heightened the impact of the Red Wedding, unless you think that Robb as romantic moron is more compelling than Robb as king who desperately wants to reclaim his home which he lost because of his own mistake, and also unless you think that Cat wasn't really important character for that particular storyline (because when Talisa appeared Cat was relegated to secondary character in the show).

Share this post


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

No, it made pointless shift in themes, it made Robb incredibly stupider, it was terribly predicatble dumb adaptation move (forcing romance where it doesn´t belong) and it was horibly written anyway.

Yeah,  it made Robb stupider. In the books Ned would understand Robb's actions, but in show he would be appalled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking itself too seriously... the show was a silly idea with a mish mash of historical misinterpretations and wish fulfillment, jammed into stellar set production and casting...

And that's all it ever was, and will be... people that have tried to make it into something more, mostly the people who made it and so on, forgot this fact... at one point or another. 

Like the very idea that this represents "Western Europe" or some such... it's more like Western Europe as imagined through "alt history" and such, taking it that the "conventional history" is missing some big mighty piece of Dragon and so on... 

In my opinion, the show is simply the final expression of "Geek" and "nerd" culture (as defined by American norms) starting in 1968 and all that with Dungeons and Dragons/Gary Gygax, going through comic con and comics, finding some of it's way into video games, and finally into Game of Thrones...

I'd actually say it is more of a deeper reflection of Southern politics since 1945... a mixmash of competing elements and traditions, derived from many different sources, such as the odd conjunction of these "nerdy" things in the middle of formerly arch-conservative places like Indiana, Illinois (outside of Chicago), Texas, Arizona, Florida etc... 

If I was being critical, I would actually compare Game of Thrones the TV show as being a vehicle for "Alt South" ethics.. a vague combination of Nordicism.. white supremacy, an interpretation of old/ancient european supposed values (but which are truly never really at the heart of the show, almost merely just to move the action along and espouse white values), and which mostly corresponds exactly with the "alt right" as you have people like Haspel from Eastern Kentucky and Pompeo from Orange County (and incidentally Pompeo being an Ancient Roman name)

When all is said and done.. the atmosphere is simply too jumbled and mixed to be comprehensible, and as the show goes on, that becomes more and more obvious... this was unplanned... an act of desperation by dying cultures (Confederate and otherwise) combined with radical re-invention and an influx of "new values" to supposedly counteract the waste, but which in reality are expediting the decline and no doubt will be one of the reasons the show will simply be forgotten by most in the few years time...

For people who are instrinsically linked to and a major part of that culture, then I suppose this show is simply the beginning. 

 

For those of us outside of it or observing, it's been a very mixed affair.. and people will mostly be happy to be done with it...

Alt-South ethics persevered at all simply because the North was just essentially nothing or completely moribund, with the Trump election and some idea of commitment to change or progress, in their area of the globe, it renders the alt-south moot. 

 

 

 

Edited by Artimicia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion never. I think every season of the show have been fantastic. I can't really think of anything negative to say about Game of Thrones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 2:40 PM, StepStark said:

There is no decline in the quality of storytelling, AFFC and ADWD are not objectively worse than the first three books, but they obviously don't deliver any closure and some readers are understandably impatient to get closures so they attack AFFC and ADWD, but objectively nothing is wrong with those two books. 

GOT never was a "fairly faithful" adaptation because right from the start D&D were changing things just because they wanted and for no good reason. Call it what you want but that is not a faithful adaptation, not even a fairly faithful adaptation.

This has been discussed since the show has started over and over..

I get what your opinion is, and it is ok, but there are also different views you should tolerate. Many people like AffC and ADwD less than the other books. I don't see a way to objectively measure a books quality, cause it's all about subjectivity. If we try to analyze the books objectively, what has already happened, we notice increasing worldbuilding and less plot-driven storytelling. I personally love Dance, but hate all of the new Brienne-chapters. That's my personal opinion.

One thing about faithful adaptions -I agree regarding to the later seasons, but at the beginning, the show was really very close to the books. If you think season 1 was not adapted faithfully at all, you should stop watching any adopted material. There is no way to transfer a book completely 1:1, and changes don't make it automatically worse compared to the original material. (Which doesn't mean I defend all stupid changes they did in got)

So, like what you like, hate what you hate, and discuss it all. But let's stop talking on objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

This has been discussed since the show has started over and over..

I get what your opinion is, and it is ok, but there are also different views you should tolerate. Many people like AffC and ADwD less than the other books. I don't see a way to objectively measure a books quality, cause it's all about subjectivity. If we try to analyze the books objectively, what has already happened, we notice increasing worldbuilding and less plot-driven storytelling. I personally love Dance, but hate all of the new Brienne-chapters. That's my personal opinion.

One thing about faithful adaptions -I agree regarding to the later seasons, but at the beginning, the show was really very close to the books. If you think season 1 was not adapted faithfully at all, you should stop watching any adopted material. There is no way to transfer a book completely 1:1, and changes don't make it automatically worse compared to the original material. (Which doesn't mean I defend all stupid changes they did in got)

So, like what you like, hate what you hate, and discuss it all. But let's stop talking on objectivity.

I liked the world building as it made the world seem more alive. the Brienne storyline had her chasing the faintest hints of the Stark girls across the war ravaged Riverlands and we got a look at how things are for the smallfolk. 

I watched Season one before devouring all the books right after and I was shocked to learn Robert and Cersie never had a black haired baby nor that there was a prostitute named Ros. but beyond that the first season was very faithful, it veered off course when some foreign medicine woman became Robb's love interest, it just felt so wrong compared to the books. that was the definition of a stupid decision. the kind that had me thinking "you know what Walder will be justified still a guest right breaking slug of a man but justified in his wrath".  

I'd say the show was okay with me up until the moment when Tyrion was being released by Jaime. I was waiting for that moment more than anything especially since they had the two brothers get all chummy earlier and just knew that the Tysha not be a whore reveal would be truly epic in its impact on Tyrion's and Jaime's bond...but they didn't do it and I called bullshit. Cut to Sansa being married off to Ramsey and I was like fuck it. then we got Jon being killed right after they had legitimate proof of what is coming thanks to eye witnesses, the whole deal with the Boltons, Porne, and to top it all off Ser Barristan "The Muthafuggin' Bold" Selmy (that's how we say his name in the hood) got killed off so there would be none of the gloriousness that was his chapters in ADWD or the Queensguard.

Season 5 broke me. Season 6 finished me off. but damnit I cannot stop watching because with all the flaws of the writing the visuals are still great. 

Also the lack of Direwolves have really irked me to no end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Golden Wolf said:

I liked the world building as it made the world seem more alive. the Brienne storyline had her chasing the faintest hints of the Stark girls across the war ravaged Riverlands and we got a look at how things are for the smallfolk. 

I watched Season one before devouring all the books right after and I was shocked to learn Robert and Cersie never had a black haired baby nor that there was a prostitute named Ros. but beyond that the first season was very faithful, it veered off course when some foreign medicine woman became Robb's love interest, it just felt so wrong compared to the books. that was the definition of a stupid decision. the kind that had me thinking "you know what Walder will be justified still a guest right breaking slug of a man but justified in his wrath".  

I'd say the show was okay with me up until the moment when Tyrion was being released by Jaime. I was waiting for that moment more than anything especially since they had the two brothers get all chummy earlier and just knew that the Tysha not be a whore reveal would be truly epic in its impact on Tyrion's and Jaime's bond...but they didn't do it and I called bullshit. Cut to Sansa being married off to Ramsey and I was like fuck it. then we got Jon being killed right after they had legitimate proof of what is coming thanks to eye witnesses, the whole deal with the Boltons, Porne, and to top it all off Ser Barristan "The Muthafuggin' Bold" Selmy (that's how we say his name in the hood) got killed off so there would be none of the gloriousness that was his chapters in ADWD or the Queensguard.

Season 5 broke me. Season 6 finished me off. but damnit I cannot stop watching because with all the flaws of the writing the visuals are still great. 

Also the lack of Direwolves have really irked me to no end.

I pretty much agree.

First of all they did minor changes like Talisa that didn't improve the story and felt unnecessary, but I was ok with it. 

Then, more and more potential was wasted. Just mentioning HotU, Dorne, Euron and the kingsmoot, Barristan, Tyrion... but overall, I still liked it.

What I can't forgive is lazy righting, complete lack of logic and stupid fantasy cliche. It has started with Aryas stabbing in Braavos, and killed it for me in season7/"Beyond the wall".. If the show tells us, we shouldn't complain about geographical distances, cause there are magical dragons, then they lost all focus on what made it a great show once.

Edited by Lemorecake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 9:31 AM, Lemorecake said:

This has been discussed since the show has started over and over..

I get what your opinion is, and it is ok, but there are also different views you should tolerate.

How I'm not tolerating different views? What does it mean?

On 6/3/2018 at 9:31 AM, Lemorecake said:

Many people like AffC and ADwD less than the other books. I don't see a way to objectively measure a books quality, cause it's all about subjectivity. If we try to analyze the books objectively, what has already happened, we notice increasing worldbuilding and less plot-driven storytelling. I personally love Dance, but hate all of the new Brienne-chapters. That's my personal opinion.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say and I'm really not sure what does it have to do with me. Sorry to say but it looks like you wanted to argue with me for... reasons!

In case you misunderstood, I wasn't talking about actual book quality of the last two books, but I said that there is nothing objectively wrong with them. You seem to be confusing the two so let me try to explain the difference: when something is objectively wrong, it means that no reasonable argument can be made that it's not wrong. You can still like it for your personal reasons but you can't say that complaints are unfounded. For example, you can like the wight hunt in the last season of the show, but objectively it is illogical and full of gigantic plot holes. Wight hunt is objectively bad. There is something objectively wrong with it. AFFC and ADWD are not that case at all. They may be weaker books than the first three (which is something I agree partially), but there is nothing objectively wrong with them.

You hate Brienne chapters? Okay, your right. It would be better if you stated your reasons for hating them, but okay, you don't have to, again it's your right not to. But there is nothing objectively wrong with Brienne's chapters. It's not about personal opinions but about pure logic and reason.

On 6/3/2018 at 9:31 AM, Lemorecake said:

One thing about faithful adaptions -I agree regarding to the later seasons, but at the beginning, the show was really very close to the books. If you think season 1 was not adapted faithfully at all, you should stop watching any adopted material. There is no way to transfer a book completely 1:1, and changes don't make it automatically worse compared to the original material. (Which doesn't mean I defend all stupid changes they did in got)

Drogo raping Dany. Loras shaving Renly. Ros. Littlefinger telling Sandor's story. Sexposition. Cersei visiting various people in The Red Keep just so she can argue with them for no apparent goal. Marginalization of direwolves. Need I go on?

None of that was necessary. All of that was D&D's choice. And all of that made the story weaker.

And please, in the future try not to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Thanks in advance. And also, try not to lecture me about things I didn't even mention. "There is no was to transfer a book completely 1:1"... LOL! Are you for real? That is the weakest argument ever. First, who's even talking about "1:1" adaptation. Second, just look at that list of those examples and tell me which of those changes was impossible to avoid. Let me tell you: none! Not a single one. So think about that when you'r defending the first season with weak arguments.

On 6/3/2018 at 9:31 AM, Lemorecake said:

So, like what you like, hate what you hate, and discuss it all. But let's stop talking on objectivity.

So, when you say that "there is no way to transfer a book completely 1:1", is that your personal opinion or attempt to come up with objective statement?

Hypocrisy much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Im neither trying to argue with you nor lecture you. I just wondered what a fairly faithful adaption has to look like, if the first season does not match it in your point of view. In general, do you think an adaptions quality is linked to its faithfulness?

When talking about tolerating different views, i refered to the fact that this discussion has become quite.... argumentative?

On 5/22/2018 at 2:40 PM, StepStark said:

Sorry to say but this is a silly argument. You're not talking about adaptation but about fan fiction. Adaptation isn't supposed to be a different version of the original story. That's fan fiction, not adaptation. And please, I'm hearing about this "people want to be surprised" argument for years but it's just ridiculous.

To me, it seemed you argue against people that don´t share your personal taste by using "objectively statements". If i misunderstood you, i apologize.

So, about Briennes chapters: They could have been condensed in a much more compelling way. Whereas i like world building very much, it was a meandering journey with the same problems that showed up in Dance overall: Too many new locations and side characters, many readers have a problem to get attached to. For example, many people think of Quentyns arc as objektively bad.

Finally, there is clearly no way, especially in the later books that reach 1000p, to accomplish a 100% transition. Once again, i don´t want to be a show defender, they chose a completely wrong path later on. But this is something, everyone has to agree with.

Edited by Lemorecake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

Wow.

Im neither trying to argue with you nor lecture you. I just wondered what a fairly faithful adaption has to look like, if the first season does not match it in your point of view. In general, do you think an adaptions quality is linked to its faithfulness?

If the source material is something like ASOIAF, which is very very complex and complicated, then of course that the quality is linked to faithfulness.

About early seasons, I'm not complaining about changes that were necessary, for example Tyrion's battle in episode 9 couldn't be filmed because they didn't have enough money. I'm talking about things D&D changed because they liked their ridiculous ideas more than the source material, and there is a lot of them, much more than people usually remember, and that is why I can't agree that first season is "fairly faithful".

20 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

So, about Briennes chapters: They could have been condensed in a much more compelling way. Whereas i like world building very much, it was a meandering journey with the same problems that showed up in Dance overall: Too many new locations and side characters, many readers have a problem to get attached to. For example, many people think of Quentyns arc as objektively bad.

While it is true that the universe expanded a lot in AFFC, it is also true that the universe was expanding from the beginning. Even if I don't particularly enjoy all of the new POVs, for example Brienne's chapters aren't really favorites of mine, I think that there's nothing objectively wrong with the expansion and I like it much more than I don't. And I've seen a lot of readers who actually like Brienne's chapters for example. So again, there is nothing objectively wrong with AFFC and ADWD.

20 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

Finally, there is clearly no way, especially in the later books that reach 1000p, to accomplish a 100% transition. Once again, i don´t want to be a show defender, they chose a completely wrong path later on. But this is something, everyone has to agree with.

So again, it all depends on the source material. There are source materials that can be adapted almost 100 percent faithfully. There are very faithful adaptations out there. Classics are usually adapted that way. Getsby was adapted pretty faithfully two times.

Share this post


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

If the source material is something like ASOIAF, which is very very complex and complicated, then of course that the quality is linked to faithfulness.

About early seasons, I'm not complaining about changes that were necessary, for example Tyrion's battle in episode 9 couldn't be filmed because they didn't have enough money. I'm talking about things D&D changed because they liked their ridiculous ideas more than the source material, and there is a lot of them, much more than people usually remember, and that is why I can't agree that first season is "fairly faithful".

While it is true that the universe expanded a lot in AFFC, it is also true that the universe was expanding from the beginning. Even if I don't particularly enjoy all of the new POVs, for example Brienne's chapters aren't really favorites of mine, I think that there's nothing objectively wrong with the expansion and I like it much more than I don't. And I've seen a lot of readers who actually like Brienne's chapters for example. So again, there is nothing objectively wrong with AFFC and ADWD.

I think it makes sense not only to differ between necessary and unneccesary changes, but also changes that are consistent with the source material´s spirit or not. Throughout the series, there have been changes that worked out quite well, such as a more fleshed out Margaery, High Sparrow and Selyse. I really liked Arya and Tywin or Brienne vs the Hound. Hardhome, a well loved episode, is hardly based an any source material. I think these changes worke, because they are not in contrast to the books story and message.

Otherwise, if the anti-hero, anti-war-story is corrupted by nonlogical icebear-wights, Dorne-journeys and miraculous healings, it is not even an adaptation, but weak interpretation of the story (hate the term fanfiction).

I mostly agree with you towards world expansion as a good thing, but i fear some difficulites George had developing the story during AFFC/ADWDcan be sensed by the reader. In my opinion, Briennes very weak show-story staring at a candle reflects her book story wandering around, both not knowing what to do with her until other characters meet up. Talking of knots and gaps, i assume it was another good idea to age up the characters from books to show.

Share this post


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

I think it makes sense not only to differ between necessary and unneccesary changes, but also changes that are consistent with the source material´s spirit or not. Throughout the series, there have been changes that worked out quite well, such as a more fleshed out Margaery, High Sparrow and Selyse. I really liked Arya and Tywin or Brienne vs the Hound. Hardhome, a well loved episode, is hardly based an any source material. I think these changes worke, because they are not in contrast to the books story and message.

Margaery is not "more fleshed out"in the show, she's a completely different character in the show, and she's also not really written well and not very well acted. I'd much prefer Margaery from the books instead of time- and scene-consuming version from the show which eventually meant nothing and brought nothing. It was a change made just so they can cast Natalie Dormer which is like one of definitions of unfaithful adaptation (and I have to repeat again - a very bad one).

Tywin is a similar case only Charles Dance is much better actor than Natalie Dormer so his acting skills covered a lot of stupid writing in his scenes. His scenes with Arya were amusing to extent but ultimately served no purpose, while on the other hand there were no Arya's scenes with Roose like in the books. I'd much much prefer to have Roose-Arya than Tywin-Arya scenes.

I'll never understand what people like about Brienne vs the Hound. Apparently many do, but it's a mystery to me why is that so.

Hardhome is another mystery. I think they used all the most ridiculous battle tropes in that scene, and yet people loved it. Oh, and one more thing: what was the point of Hardhome? Nobody talks about it. Nobody thinks about it. Crows kill Jon all the same. Jon wages a war with Boltons all the same. If Hardhome didn't happen, would anything be different really? Not a single thing. So it was a filler, and yet I don't see anyone complaining about it. Really, what was the benefit of having that scene in the show? It wasn't a good battle scene (unless you think Jon being effectively spared couple of times by that WW is somehow rewarding and groundbreaking) and it influenced nothing. What was the point then?

1 hour ago, Lemorecake said:

Otherwise, if the anti-hero, anti-war-story is corrupted by nonlogical icebear-wights, Dorne-journeys and miraculous healings, it is not even an adaptation, but weak interpretation of the story (hate the term fanfiction).

I mostly agree with you towards world expansion as a good thing, but i fear some difficulites George had developing the story during AFFC/ADWDcan be sensed by the reader. In my opinion, Briennes very weak show-story staring at a candle reflects her book story wandering around, both not knowing what to do with her until other characters meet up. Talking of knots and gaps, i assume it was another good idea to age up the characters from books to show.

There is a world of difference between Brienne staring at a candle for episodes on one hand and Brienne meeting various people in war-ravaged Westeros and fighting a couple of battles (and making her first kill) on the other. It's not even comparable.

Aging of the characters is good idea in theory, but sadly it didn't have any follow-up in the show because characters in the show act much more immaturely than characters in the books.

Share this post


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

Margaery is not "more fleshed out"in the show, she's a completely different character in the show, and she's also not really written well and not very well acted. I'd much prefer Margaery from the books instead of time- and scene-consuming version from the show which eventually meant nothing and brought nothing. It was a change made just so they can cast Natalie Dormer which is like one of definitions of unfaithful adaptation (and I have to repeat again - a very bad one).

Tywin is a similar case only Charles Dance is much better actor than Natalie Dormer so his acting skills covered a lot of stupid writing in his scenes. His scenes with Arya were amusing to extent but ultimately served no purpose, while on the other hand there were no Arya's scenes with Roose like in the books. I'd much much prefer to have Roose-Arya than Tywin-Arya scenes.

Margaery in the books is nearly nonexistent as a character. All we get is Cerceis hateful view on her while she is partying with her cousins. Yes, it was a major change to the books, but one i appreciated. The whole "meant nothing and brought nothing" argument is pointless. This can be said about many parts of the book, you would defend by pointing to world building and comprehensive storytelling. Orsons beetles was a scene without purpose, but why do you dislike Natalie Dormer and her version of Margaery so much? To my mind, all of her scenes with Cersei, Sansa or Geffroy worked out quite well. She gave us a vivid impression of a more mature Margaery that enrichended the show.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

I'll never understand what people like about Brienne vs the Hound. Apparently many do, but it's a mystery to me why is that so.

Hardhome is another mystery. I think they used all the most ridiculous battle tropes in that scene, and yet people loved it. Oh, and one more thing: what was the point of Hardhome? Nobody talks about it. Nobody thinks about it. Crows kill Jon all the same. Jon wages a war with Boltons all the same. If Hardhome didn't happen, would anything be different really? Not a single thing. So it was a filler, and yet I don't see anyone complaining about it. Really, what was the benefit of having that scene in the show? It wasn't a good battle scene (unless you think Jon being effectively spared couple of times by that WW is somehow rewarding and groundbreaking) and it influenced nothing. What was the point then?

This is very close to arguing all people who love this scenes are simple minded. Guessing this was not your intention, i suppose hardhome fulfilled several purposes. Whereas the white walkers havent appeared in the books for a long time, the show tried to show them up frequently. We got also introduced to Wun-Wun and saw what valyrian steele is capabe of. Finally it did fulfill the same purpose all the disturbing ravens bringing messages from hardhome in the books did: raising the tension. Hardhome happens in the books, dead things in the water and more of it. Does it have no purpose, because the crows would have killed Jon after the pink letter-incident anyway? I dont think so.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

There is a world of difference between Brienne staring at a candle for episodes on one hand and Brienne meeting various people in war-ravaged Westeros and fighting a couple of battles (and making her first kill) on the other. It's not even comparable.

It is super-comparable, because it is a problem originating from the same reason: Giving her something to do. What purpose lies in her chapters? We have learned about the devastation of war und the suffering Riverlands before. We follow her on a quest that is doomed from the start, because we know that Sansa is not there. All her battles are just filler. I don´t see much character development during her travels... It is a richer an more beautiful way, GRRM lets her stare on a candle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lemorecake said:

Margaery in the books is nearly nonexistent as a character. All we get is Cerceis hateful view on her while she is partying with her cousins. Yes, it was a major change to the books, but one i appreciated. The whole "meant nothing and brought nothing" argument is pointless. This can be said about many parts of the book, you would defend by pointing to world building and comprehensive storytelling. Orsons beetles was a scene without purpose, but why do you dislike Natalie Dormer and her version of Margaery so much? To my mind, all of her scenes with Cersei, Sansa or Geffroy worked out quite well. She gave us a vivid impression of a more mature Margaery that enrichended the show.

This is very close to arguing all people who love this scenes are simple minded. Guessing this was not your intention, i suppose hardhome fulfilled several purposes. Whereas the white walkers havent appeared in the books for a long time, the show tried to show them up frequently. We got also introduced to Wun-Wun and saw what valyrian steele is capabe of. Finally it did fulfill the same purpose all the disturbing ravens bringing messages from hardhome in the books did: raising the tension. Hardhome happens in the books, dead things in the water and more of it. Does it have no purpose, because the crows would have killed Jon after the pink letter-incident anyway? I dont think so.

It is super-comparable, because it is a problem originating from the same reason: Giving her something to do. What purpose lies in her chapters? We have learned about the devastation of war und the suffering Riverlands before. We follow her on a quest that is doomed from the start, because we know that Sansa is not there. All her battles are just filler. I don´t see much character development during her travels... It is a richer an more beautiful way, GRRM lets her stare on a candle.

Let's get something straight.

In the show, there is literally no progression in Margaery's character. Yes she is more involved than the same character is in the books, but none of that involvement can be seen as character progression. Obviously, I'm not counting writing inconsistencies as progression or development. In the show, she has no arc to speak of because it's just about her wanting to be The Queen and once she became one D&D obviously had no idea what to do with her. It's important to notice that she in no way influenced anything that happened to her, unless lying to protect your own brother (and subsequently getting arrested for perjury) passes off as "agency" today, and that means that all of her scenes added literally nothing. They added nothing to the overall plot, nothing to her character development (because there was none), and nothing to any deeper meaning. If Margaery was played by some minor actress like Myrcella and if her role was as "nearly nonexistent" as in the books, not a single thing would've been missed by viewers.

You may like her show scenes as much as you want, but all of this is just facts.

On the other hand, in the books Brienne goes through obvious development in AFFC. At the end of the novel she is not really the same person she was at the beginning. Now just imagine if she was entirely absent from AFFC and all of a sudden she reappears in ADWD at the end of that one Jaime chapter: readers would definitely realize that something of huge importance happened to her since the last time she was seen. Maybe you'd prefer it that way, while I prefer to follow development of important characters as closely as possible, but our preferences aren't important for what I'm saying here. And I'm saying that Brienne's chapters in AFFC had undeniable impact on her as a character and, depending on what happens next in that storyline, they may have equally big or even bigger impact on Jaime's and Cat's arcs. You may dislike her chapters as much as you want, and just to remind you that I'm also not a big fan of them, but this is just facts.

So, when you say that you love Margaery in the show and you think that it was a change you appreciated, while at the same time you have nothing but criticism for Brienne's chapters in AFFC, you realize why someone can think that you have double standards: one set of standards for the show, which you criticize only if they do something that is universally seen as terrible by practically everyone, and another set of standards for the books which you criticize even when GRRM does something D&D fail to do over and over again?

Share this post


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

Let's get something straight.

In the show, there is literally no progression in Margaery's character. Yes she is more involved than the same character is in the books, but none of that involvement can be seen as character progression. Obviously, I'm not counting writing inconsistencies as progression or development. In the show, she has no arc to speak of because it's just about her wanting to be The Queen and once she became one D&D obviously had no idea what to do with her. It's important to notice that she in no way influenced anything that happened to her, unless lying to protect your own brother (and subsequently getting arrested for perjury) passes off as "agency" today, and that means that all of her scenes added literally nothing. They added nothing to the overall plot, nothing to her character development (because there was none), and nothing to any deeper meaning. If Margaery was played by some minor actress like Myrcella and if her role was as "nearly nonexistent" as in the books, not a single thing would've been missed by viewers.

You may like her show scenes as much as you want, but all of this is just facts.

On the other hand, in the books Brienne goes through obvious development in AFFC. At the end of the novel she is not really the same person she was at the beginning. Now just imagine if she was entirely absent from AFFC and all of a sudden she reappears in ADWD at the end of that one Jaime chapter: readers would definitely realize that something of huge importance happened to her since the last time she was seen. Maybe you'd prefer it that way, while I prefer to follow development of important characters as closely as possible, but our preferences aren't important for what I'm saying here. And I'm saying that Brienne's chapters in AFFC had undeniable impact on her as a character and, depending on what happens next in that storyline, they may have equally big or even bigger impact on Jaime's and Cat's arcs. You may dislike her chapters as much as you want, and just to remind you that I'm also not a big fan of them, but this is just facts.

So, when you say that you love Margaery in the show and you think that it was a change you appreciated, while at the same time you have nothing but criticism for Brienne's chapters in AFFC, you realize why someone can think that you have double standards: one set of standards for the show, which you criticize only if they do something that is universally seen as terrible by practically everyone, and another set of standards for the books which you criticize even when GRRM does something D&D fail to do over and over again?

No matter how much I dislike the show, I still feel that Show!Margeary at least added interesting presence at the court. Her manipulation of Joffrey (if basic) showed to certain extent Tyrell ambition and skill in playing the game. If nothing else it helped the atmosphere. Although I am still not sure if it was more difference in quality or simply in medium.  

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

×