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

[The Golden Wolf]

15 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.

Book!margaery is only seen through Cersie's eyes for a reason. It is to allow the character to stay pure and for us the reader to decide whether or not Cersie's thoughts on her are true or not. Cersie wants Margaery to be like her because it validates her actions. Show!Margaery on the other hand is everything that Book!Cersie wants Book!her to be. There is no ambiguity to whether or not she is a scheming temptress willing to sleep her way to power and who is willing to use here sexual wiles to put men under her spell. In a way though she is more fleshed out...until we get to season 5 where everything goes to shit.

Hardhome was cool but it really messes up the narrtive for why Jon is assassinated. Book!Jon is assassinated because the Crows feel as if he has betrayed them completely. First with the killing of the Halfhand and going undercover with the Wildlings, Secondly when he (really Stannis) let the Wildlings through the wall and then turned around and had the Wildings man the wall, and Lastly when he made his intention to go down south to fight Ramsay known. In the eyes of the Crows he was was a traitor 3 times over and the final betrayal was the last one. during all this though Jon was constantly trying to prepare them for both Winter and the coming war with the Others. he kept telling them that his actions was to benefit all of them but the older Crows just couldn't stomach his reasoning. They had not seen the Wights so they did not believe the threat of the Others. 

Hardhome though literally gives Jon hundreds of eye witnesses both Wilding and Crow of the coming threat of the Others. Killing Jon after the Crows have proof that the Others are coming is literally the worse thing the Crows can do when the Wildings are loyal to him and they are vastly outnumbered. Fighting Ramsay, who is by the way threatening the Watch, is the right choice because they have way bigger things to worry about. 

Brienne was wasted in Season 5 and the entire northen plotline was a waste as well. 

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, Rhodan said:

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.  

Well, if you find show Margeary interesting as a presence, then I guess you won't have problems with her portrayal and her role. And that's okay. But I don't find her interesting at all. But even that's beside the point because it's not about personal preferences. I dislike show Olenna too, but I can't deny that she had an impact on the story and played a significant role. That much I can admit. I still dislike her scenes and how she's written, but at least she wasn't there just for the sake of being there. Margeary is just not that case at all.

About Tyrells in general, I don't think it's comparable really. In the books they are much more believable as a family and as a powerhouse than in the show. In the books they are also ran by Olenna, but not overtly and Tyrell men are no joke (which makes Olenna's command even more impressive). But in the show Tyrell men are unrecognizable, Mace is literally a joke and a very ineffective one, and Loras is a gay caricature.

[Rhodan]

1 minute ago, StepStark said:

About Tyrells in general, I don't think it's comparable really. In the books they are much more believable as a family and as a powerhouse than in the show. In the books they are also ran by Olenna, but not overtly and Tyrell men are no joke (which makes Olenna's command even more impressive). But in the show Tyrell men are unrecognizable, Mace is literally a joke and a very ineffective one, and Loras is a gay caricature.

Well, the show clearly loves it´s clichés and flanderizations.

[LadyNoOne]

On 10/10/2017 at 1:51 PM, Katerine459 said:

I just finished watching S7. Watched S5-7 in short succession, and I've noticed a pattern in the show's writing that started as early as S5.

To be clear, I have no problem with the show deviating from the books. Especially given that books 6 and 7 haven't been published yet, they really had no choice, and even if they did, some deviation would be necessary, unless they wanted to make each season 100 episodes long. I even like some of the changes. Tyrion meeting Dany early on, for example.

But I think most people agree, the show has taken a notable downturn since S4. I first noticed it when Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons.

The reason... the established reason... that Littlefinger arranged the whole Purple Wedding thing, was because he wanted Sansa. He wanted her for himself. Not only that, but Sansa really had to stay in hiding because Cersei had a "warrant" out for her. The only reason Littlefinger gave Sansa to the Boltons in S5 is because the writers wanted him to -- never mind that it makes no sense with his established motivations -- and the only reason both Sansa and Littlefinger survived S5 is because the writers apparently never considered how Cersei would react.

To me, this is the root of the problem. You can hear it in the interviews with them. They constantly talk about what they want to have happen. They keep trying to give the fans the things that they want to have happen. But it's all for nothing if you forget the basic rule: what should happen, is what would happen, given the characters involved.

Littlefinger should not have given Sansa to the Boltons, not because we don't want to see that, and not because that's not what happened in the books, but because that's not what Littlefinger would have done. And Cersei shouldn't have allowed it, because that's not what Cersei would have done.

ASOIAF has great worldbuilding, it's true. Many fantasy series have great worldbuilding. What makes the series great is the way everything... everything... that happens, in the entire series, feels organic. It feels natural. It feels like everything that happens is a direct result of the characters... all 1,995 diverse characters... acting like they would act in that situation. That's what makes the world feel real. That's what makes us care about the characters. That's what makes the story great.

It's inconvenient to write that way, sure. Sometimes, it means you have to give up on the cool things you want to see happen. But it ultimately results in a much better story.

S6 and S7 can basically be summed up as, "we want to see this happen, and the fans want to see this happen, so let's make it happen, and that'll make the fans happy." But writing that way is like giving us nothing but ice cream to eat. Sure, it's tasty for a while, but there's no substance there. Without organic character behavior, nothing else works.

Some other specific complaints, off the top of my head:

• Not exactly a character complaint, but there was a change from the books that I didn't care for, just because I didn't care for it. I liked the meaning of the words, "the North remembers." How the entire North banded together against those who betrayed the Starks. While I love Arya, I felt having her responsible for everything cheapened things.
• Speaking of Arya, the House of Black and White is rather dedicated to its secrets and its religion, and I don't think it would let her go so easily. Even if she wanted to go. Which she wouldn't. At least, not just on the basis of being asked to fulfill a contract.
• Also speaking of Arya... what the hell was up with her behavior towards Sansa in S7? Seriously. What the hell?
• What exactly were all of those knights and lords showing up to Arya's/Littlefinger's trial thinking? Did they know in advance what was planned? If so, how is that smart? And if not, why did they just go along with the change of plans?
• Speaking of Littlefinger's trial: how does it make sense that Littlefinger was behind the cutthroat attack on Bran? That makes no sense. Littlefinger was a) all the way in King's Landing at the time and probably didn't even know that the younger son of Ned Stark had an "accident," and b ) in love with Cat, Bran's mother. Contrast with the explanation in the books, when Cat asked Littlefinger about the dagger, Littlefinger presumably recognized it immediately as belonging to Joffrey (who did it because he heard Robert saying that it would be better for the boy to die, so he did it to make Robert proud), but Littlefinger couldn't very well tell Cat that it belonged to Joffrey, so he made up a story about losing it to Tyrion.
• Not exactly a character complaint, just something I didn't care for: Danaerys was much more cunning in the show than in the books. In the books, all of us readers could see the machinations going on in Meereen, but she couldn't, when Hizdahr zo Loraq kept asking her to marry him and promised to make the attacks by the Sons of the Harpy stop if she married him. It kind of made sense that she would be naive, given her lack of experience with court machinations, and it emphasized very nicely just how much she needs somebody like Tyrion. I know the writers wanted her to be a strong female character, but... she is strong. Strong and flawless are two very different things. If they'd stayed true to the books in this, it would have shown a strong character who still has room for character growth.
• Back to character complaints: Why did Tyrion believe that they could convince Cersei to fight alongside them, just by showing her a wight? Why did he ever think that she would see it as anything other than a tool to use for her own ends? That's all Cersei, as portrayed in the show, is capable of seeing. That's always been an established fact.
• After they saw the army of the dead at Hardhome, why did they think that a small band of people would be enough to abduct a wight?
• Why would Elia consent to an annulment? For that matter, why would the High Septon, after their marriage was already consummated and she had given Rhaegar two children? And on a related note, why would Lyanna name her child Aegon, when Aegon is also the name of one of Rhaegar's other children? All of this screams "convenience" and "fan service."
• Not a character complaint, just a practical one: Sam got from Oldtown to Winterfell awfully quickly. In his horse-drawn wagon. With a woman and a toddler. In winter. It took him, what, a week?

So... yeah. Those are my thoughts on where the show went wrong. In all fiction, but especially in fantasy, it's always best to start with what the characters would do. Not with what you want them to do. GRRM does this expertly. The show's writers, OTOH, are looking at it backwards.

Thoughts?

Hi, I'm new here.  I like the HBO series.  I enjoy that it is different from the books because I cannot then know exactly what is going to happen.  There are small and large differences, but I do value both the HBO version and the books.

Cheers!

[Rhodan]

3 minutes ago, LadyNoOne said:

Hi, I'm new here.  I like the HBO series.  I enjoy that it is different from the books because I cannot then know exactly what is going to happen.  There are small and large differences, but I do value both the HBO version and the books.

Cheers!

So? This isn´t about the fact something is different. It is about how it is written as a result.  

[LadyNoOne]

1 minute ago, Rhodan said:

So? This isn´t about the fact something is different. It is about how it is written as a result.  

I think there is beauty in differences.  I don't feel it was written in accordance to some expectation.  Yes, there are some plot-holes, and there are in the books as well. 

Thanks for your reply

[Rhodan]

Just now, LadyNoOne said:

I think there is beauty in differences.  I don't feel it was written in accordance to some expectation.  Yes, there are some plot-holes, and there are in the books as well. 

Thanks for your reply

OK, I personaly think that while books have problem here and there, there aren´t significant "plot holes" as such. In the show´s original writing I think there is seldom to find anything that is well written or makes sense anymore. That would be only "expectations" I would like te be met.   

[LadyNoOne]

1 minute ago, Rhodan said:

OK, I personaly think that while books have problem here and there, there aren´t significant "plot holes" as such. In the show´s original writing I think there is seldom to find anything that is well written or makes sense anymore. That would be only "expectations" I would like te be met.   

One thing I noticed right away after watching S1 was that Dany wasn't raped by Drogo in the first book.  Rather, they fell in love and consummated their marriage under the stars.  This hardly constitutes a plot hole, but it is a totally different perspective.  I did not want to see Dany suffer that way in the series.  It wasn't written to my expectations!   It did gain my interest in the HBO series, however, as I could count on a take on matters apart from what I was anticipating.

Now, the LF/Bolton story of the series is quite flawed.  As widely known,  LF wants Sansa for himself.  If he arranged the marriage to a House as prominent as the Warden of the North, the Boltons (Ramsey), then of course Cersei would have discovered this.  It would then follow that Cersei would have had Sansa seized.  I don't think any viewers would have enjoyed either outcome.  Did we want to see Sansa brutalized by Ramsey?  Of course not.  It is a plot hole, though.

Thanks!
P.S. regarding your signature, "The North will rise again!. R+L=5. 'You have to remember you name, Yara.'. GOT: It is a tale. Told by idiots, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.":
One of more important points of this story, books or series, is that it has something for everyone.  There are politics, action, fantasy, and sci-fi to some extent.

[Rhodan]

1 minute ago, LadyNoOne said:

One thing I noticed right away after watching S1 was that Dany wasn't raped by Drogo in the first book.  Rather, they fell in love and consummated their marriage under the stars.  This hardly constitutes a plot hole, but it is a totally different perspective.  I did not want to see Dany suffer that way in the series.  It wasn't written to my expectations!   It did gain my interest in the HBO series, however, as I could count on a take on matters apart from what I was anticipating.

Now, the LF/Bolton story of the series is quite flawed.  As widely known,  LF wants Sansa for himself.  If he arranged the marriage to a House as prominent as the Warden of the North, the Boltons (Ramsey), then of course Cersei would have discovered this.  It would then follow that Cersei would have had Sansa seized.  I don't think any viewers would have enjoyed either outcome.  Did we want to see Sansa brutalized by Ramsey?  Of course not.  It is a plot hole, though.

Thanks!
P.S. regarding your signature, "The North will rise again!. R+L=5. 'You have to remember you name, Yara.'. GOT: It is a tale. Told by idiots, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.":
One of more important points of this story, books or series, is that it has something for everyone.  There are politics, action, fantasy, and sci-fi to some extent.

Well, I agree about what have you written about the show, no problem there.

That signature is a joke based on quote from Macbeth.

[LadyNoOne]

1 minute ago, Rhodan said:

Well, I agree about what have you written about the show, no problem there.

That signature is a joke based on quote from Macbeth.

I actually got that!  Thanks for mentioning Macbeth because I was having trouble remembering that reference, lol

[Lemorecake]

6 hours ago, The Golden Wolf said:

Hardhome was cool but it really messes up the narrtive for why Jon is assassinated.

True. Circumstances at the Wall are quite different in the show, but it made little sense to proceed with the assassination the way it happened in the books. However, i think Hardhome was a good idea still.

9 hours ago, Rhodan said:

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.  

I totally agree with the latter.

There are two major techniques in writing, that cannot be transfered from books to tv properly. First, there is a lot of inner monologue, that has to be remodeled to dialoge or scenery. Second, GRRM often uses secondary characters as PoVs to maintain the inner mystery of main characters. In the show, this is not neccesary or even wanted. No matter if the transition is done good or badly, i think these are important facts to consider.

 

17 hours ago, StepStark said:

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.

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.

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?

I feel free to criticize both, show and books, whenever i feel to, not when i think it may be consensual opinion. Assuming so is as fair as calling you a fundamentalistic book purist. Do i think, there have been many unnecessary minor changes throughout the first seasons? Yes, i have already said so. Do i still think seasons 1-4 are fairly faithfull and enjoyable? Of course. The Dark Tower and Ghost in the Shell are what i would call not true to the original. Every criticism should stay within reason.

I think double standards are really what we have to talk about.
Obviously, it does not make sense to compare a book and a tv-show by the exactly same parameters. However, the overall quality always depends on good development of plot/characters and internal logic. You insist, that Show!Margaery as a secondary character has no character development or impact at all (although it was her actions that chased Cersei to the faith, for example). Contrary, you defend Briennes chapters resolutely. To me, it seems GRRM uses her journey to show Tarly, Meribald and Nimble Dick, tell us their stories and explore the eastern crownlands. Meanwhile, Brienne mostly thinks of Jaime and her vows, what she has already done before. Could you explain, why she is another person afterwards, especially if she wouldn´t have met Lady Stoneheart? Until TWoW, any thoughts on impact she might have are pure speculation.
Concluding, if you want to avoid double standards by yourself, you have to judge some book characters as harshly as you do Show!Margaery. Quentin, Victarion, Areo Hotah and Arys Oakheart barely have any character development and serve for world building (which, again, i like pretty much). Any impact on the story results from activities, that could have worked without them. Thinking of Penny, many secondary characters in the books have no story arc of their own.

[StepStark]

21 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

Concluding, if you want to avoid double standards by yourself, you have to judge some book characters as harshly as you do Show!Margaery.

Considering that not a single character in the books is written remotely as badly as Margaery in the show... why would I do that?

28 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

Thinking of Penny, many secondary characters in the books have no story arc of their own.

So? Secondary characters usually don't have arcs of their own. They usually serve arcs of main characters. Especially in a story with as many main characters as ASOIAF has. What would be the point of Penny's arc?

And also, you can't have it both ways. You criticize GRRM for adding "too many new characters" in AFFC and ADWD, and at the same time criticize him for not giving them arcs. That's mutually exclusive, don't you think?

But the problem with Margaery isn't that she's a secondary character! It's the opposite: in the show she was promoted into a main character! and for no good reason. And the result is pathetic. Here's her scene with Renly from season two, I couldn't find a better edited cut (but the entire scene is even more ridiculous):

Is this a well written scene? LOL!

She comes off as a completely unscrupulous manipulator who'll stop at nothing to achieve her goal, but at the same time she's very bad at it because only a moron would ever think that THAT is how you seduce a guy. But lucky for her, Renly in the show is also a moron who needs to be taught about ways of the court, because he was apparently living in Flea Bottom during all those years he spent in King's Landing.

This has to be the worst seduction/tutoring scene I've ever seen. It's written poorly and acted even worse.

And where does Margaery go from there? All over the place. The rest of her "arc" is as inconsistent as one can imagine. Once her grandmother appeared in KL, Margaery turned into naive little girl who has to be reminded that Joff has to be seduced. And later on, she had to be reminded that Tommen has to be seduced too. The second task was written "brilliantly", in a way D&D obviously mastered: Tommen was turned into a bloody moron who can't see through any of Margaery's pathetic facades.

At least, at the end it was revealed that she was loyal to her family, because she gave that rose to her grandmother. Hurrah! What a brilliant arc!

Seriously, I haven't got the slightest idea what people love about show Margaery. I guess that some find Natalie Dormer attractive, which is okay, it's a good enough reason I suppose. But since the beginning it was obvious that D&D didn't cast her as Margaery, they cast her as their own Anne Boleyn which is coincidentally the exact part she played in Tudors. D&D told that they cast her because they've seen her in Turdors, Dormer said that they cast her because of that role, and she also said that D&D really didn't know what to do with her character and that's why she played her similar to how she played Anne Boleyn (with one notable exception, she didn't want to do sex scenes in GOT). It's all in their interviews. They're not hiding it.

So please, why should I "judge some book characters as harshly as I do show Margaery"? Can you name at least one character from the books which is written so poorly? At least one?

Yes, there are secondary and tertiary characters in the books. It's an epic story, of course there are going to be secondary and tertiary characters. But literally none of them is written as absurdly as Margaery Tyrell in the show, who was, to add insult to injury, promoted to one of the main characters. Until she was killed off as if she never existed.

She'd be badly written even if she remained secondary character, as that scene from above shows. But then she started consuming scenes and time to even higher degree, because D&D apparently simply love every absurd character they create.

To think that characters like Cat and Stannis got less screen time than Margaery tells you everything you need to know about this "adaptation".

So you see, I wasn't exaggerating when I said that Margaery in the show is poorly written character. I didn't say that because she's different than Margaery in the books, or because she got more time. Olenna got more time too, but I didn't complain about her. I even said that her scenes are, for the most part, not written poorly, although I personally don't like them.

You consider me a book purist? Fine, whatever. But before that, reply to the arguments I'm making here. Name me one character in the books that is written as pathetically as Margaery in the show. Penny? Give me a break. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care about Penny at all. There is nothing about Penny that is as absurd as Margaery lecturing Renly about ways of the court. It's the opposite actually because Penny is trying to teach Tyrion how to behave like a common dwarf, and that is actually logical because he's never been a common dwarf before.

[Lemorecake]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

You consider me a book purist? Fine, whatever.

Actually, I never said so.

56 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And also, you can't have it both ways. You criticize GRRM for adding "too many new characters" in AFFC and ADWD, and at the same time criticize him for not giving them arcs. That's mutually exclusive, don't you think?

To be honest, i consider the sheer number of PoVs and story arcs as a main problem i have with AFFC/ADWD. Spending more time with certain characters would have been neccesary, in my opinion. Speaking of too many new characters, i originally refered to all the people Tyrion met along his journey to Meereen. I really loved some, like the old widdow in Volantis, but i can hardly remember their short appearances.

56 minutes ago, StepStark said:

But the problem with Margaery isn't that she's a secondary character! It's the opposite: in the show she was promoted into a main character! and for no good reason.

She comes off as a completely unscrupulous manipulator who'll stop at nothing to achieve her goal, but at the same time she's very bad at it because only a moron would ever think that THAT is how you seduce a guy. But lucky for her, Renly in the show is also a moron who needs to be taught about ways of the court, because he was apparently living in Flea Bottom during all those years he spent in King's Landing.

And where does Margaery go from there? All over the place. The rest of her "arc" is as inconsistent as one can imagine. Once her grandmother appeared in KL, Margaery turned into naive little girl who has to be reminded that Joff has to be seduced. And later on, she had to be reminded that Tommen has to be seduced too. The second task was written "brilliantly", in a way D&D obviously mastered: Tommen was turned into a bloody moron who can't see through any of Margaery's pathetic facades.

Seriously, I haven't got the slightest idea what people love about show Margaery.

She may be main cast, but i consider her a supporting character. I get it, you didn´t like it at all. Everything you said about Renly and court... that´s really misinterpretation on purpose. I have no problem with you thinking it is all bad writing and acting, but this is getting a mean rant.

 

56 minutes ago, StepStark said:

So please, why should I "judge some book characters as harshly as I do show Margaery"? Can you name at least one character from the books which is written so poorly? At least one?

Why should i? I like the way GRRM develops his characters. According to your Show!Margaery-criteria, i guess Arianne, Areo and Arys are not developed so well. Especially Arianne has some inconsistencies considering her age and behaviour. Areo and Arys are just very one-dimensional.

[StepStark]

20 minutes ago, Lemorecake said:

According to your Show!Margaery-criteria, i guess Arianne, Areo and Arys are not developed so well. Especially Arianne has some inconsistencies considering her age and behaviour. Areo and Arys are just very one-dimensional.

Not really. My "Show!Margaery-criteria"is not that at all. The problem with Margaery is not that she's one-dimensional (she is, but that's not the point), but that she's written poorly. Unless you think that seduction goes as it was written in her scenes from the show.

Areo is one-dimensional because his entire purpose is to provide window into other characters. He's not important at all and GRRM is very clear about that. Everyone else is important but he isn't. The only important thing about Areo is his ax and that's it. He's the very definition of tertiary character, just so happens that he's also a POV for Dorne's court. Nice touch if you ask me, to give POV to a tertiary character. It'd be like giving a POV to Boros Blunt for example.

Arys is by no means one-dimensional. In fact his character is somewhat ridiculously developed for someone who play a very minor role in the big scheme of things. He's fleshed out in Sansa chapters in early ACOK where his romanticism is hinted at, and then again in his POV chapter in AFFC where he's consumed by romanticism, and then he meets his tragic end. I don't think GRRM needed to bother that much about Arys, but he's anything but one-dimensional.

Arianne inconsistent? Really? I'm honestly curious because I've never thought of her as inconsistent and never heard anyone say that about her. What is inconsistent about her?

[Dragon in the North]

The show hasn't gone wrong for me, and I doubt that it ever will with season 8 being the last. I've enjoyed every season so far and GOT is easily my favorite television show. Sure, there have been a few missteps, as there are with every show, but the positives of GOT far outweigh the negatives. The books, on the other hand, did go wrong for me. I absolutely loved the first three books, but AFFC/ADWD were total let downs. They totally killed the momentum of the story and it's clear that Martin has written himself into a corner. I can honestly say that I've enjoyed every season of GOT more than the last two books.

[Dragon in the North]

On May 22, 2018 at 8:40 AM, StepStark said:

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.

No, that's not correct. An adaptation is simply a licensed work, fan fiction is unlicensed. That is the difference between the two. Faithfulness has nothing to do with it. Martin signed over the rights of his story, so GOT is an adaptation.

[Dragon in the North]

On May 22, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Kandrax said:

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

How is marrying Talisa a stupider decision than marrying Jeyne? Jeyne's family is sworn to the Lannisters and any fool would suspect that they would betray him, which is exactly what happened. Besides, both marriages ended the exact same way.

[Rhodan]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

How is marrying Talisa a stupider decision than marrying Jeyne? Jeyne's family is sworn to the Lannisters and any fool would suspect that they would betray him, which is exactly what happened. Besides, both marriages ended the exact same way.

Marrying Jeyne was stupid, but it was honor-based decision without traditional romance. Marrying Talisa existed becouse stupid adaptational romance and made Robb consciously s*** on the vows with huge disrespect.  

[Lemorecake]

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Not really. My "Show!Margaery-criteria"is not that at all. The problem with Margaery is not that she's one-dimensional (she is, but that's not the point), but that she's written poorly. Unless you think that seduction goes as it was written in her scenes from the show.

Areo is one-dimensional because his entire purpose is to provide window into other characters. He's not important at all and GRRM is very clear about that. Everyone else is important but he isn't. The only important thing about Areo is his ax and that's it. He's the very definition of tertiary character, just so happens that he's also a POV for Dorne's court. Nice touch if you ask me, to give POV to a tertiary character. It'd be like giving a POV to Boros Blunt for example.

Arys is by no means one-dimensional. In fact his character is somewhat ridiculously developed for someone who play a very minor role in the big scheme of things. He's fleshed out in Sansa chapters in early ACOK where his romanticism is hinted at, and then again in his POV chapter in AFFC where he's consumed by romanticism, and then he meets his tragic end. I don't think GRRM needed to bother that much about Arys, but he's anything but one-dimensional.

Arianne inconsistent? Really? I'm honestly curious because I've never thought of her as inconsistent and never heard anyone say that about her. What is inconsistent about her?

Areo and Arys have no impact to the story, they just have been introduced to create new viewpoints. That's what I tried to say. 

Arienne.. as much as I wished we would've got more from her, I have always felt odd toward her character. At the beginning, she is this very impulsive girl, quite naive in her way, but full of sexual tension and hate towards her father, which has grown over the years. Somehow immature for such a highborn woman in her mid twenties. Then she tries her coup, fails, and the men she admits she might have loved gets slaughtered. After her time in the tower, her father tells some ridiculous stories, that just should prove all of her resentments. But suddenly she is on his side?

However, that's not the topic of this thread at all.

[Regular John Umber]

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

How is marrying Talisa a stupider decision than marrying Jeyne? Jeyne's family is sworn to the Lannisters and any fool would suspect that they would betray him, which is exactly what happened. Besides, both marriages ended the exact same way.

 

 Marrying Jeyne was a perfect illustration of Robb's character, based on his view of his father, honour, raising bastards, etc. It was rash but made sense according to Robb's character. Marrying Talisa was nonsensical - he didn't marry her because he'd "dishonoured" her, she wasn't even from a culture where that would be relevant.

 

 Also, they didn't quite end the same, did they? Jeyne's alive, and she may be pregnant.