Season 5 vs Books 4 and 5

[Kandrax]

Season 5 is seen, excluding season 7, as worst among them. However, S5 is loose adaptation of Feast and Dance. Both of these are seen as inferior toward first three. So does that means that any adaptation of book 4-5 is doomed to fail?

[btfu806]

No, I don't think they are doomed to fail. Season 5 strays from the books, a lot. Sansa marrying Ramsey is just the stupidest thing in the world. 

But in general, they took a lot of the important characters from those books, JonCon and f/rAegon being the two main ones, and cut them out completely. I would assume they play a vital role in the story (most likely). The show runners just tried to consolidate too much.

On top of that, they didn't know what to do with Arya, Jon, Cersei and the like. Book 5 ends a lot of them on cliffhangers and they must not have gotten the info from GRRM how they get out of it, because it was really weak in the show. 

So books 4-5 could be adapted really well imo, if you put in all the characters that should be there but more importantly, you know where everyone goes in the future (so you kinda need to wait for book 6 and/or 7). Since they didn't know, season 5 looks even more pointless and a giant waste of time.

Lastly, what would really help, is if they didn't assassinate Stannis as a character this entire show and especially season 5 (but that's a whole side rant).

[Kandrax]

11 hours ago, btfu806 said:

No, I don't think they are doomed to fail. Season 5 strays from the books, a lot. Sansa marrying Ramsey is just the stupidest thing in the world. 

But in general, they took a lot of the important characters from those books, JonCon and f/rAegon being the two main ones, and cut them out completely. I would assume they play a vital role in the story (most likely). The show runners just tried to consolidate too much.

On top of that, they didn't know what to do with Arya, Jon, Cersei and the like. Book 5 ends a lot of them on cliffhangers and they must not have gotten the info from GRRM how they get out of it, because it was really weak in the show. 

So books 4-5 could be adapted really well imo, if you put in all the characters that should be there but more importantly, you know where everyone goes in the future (so you kinda need to wait for book 6 and/or 7). Since they didn't know, season 5 looks even more pointless and a giant waste of time.

Lastly, what would really help, is if they didn't assassinate Stannis as a character this entire show and especially season 5 (but that's a whole side rant).

Thanks for an answer. Personally, one of reason i believe why some characters were cut is because of spoiling books.

As for Arya, i think that Show-watchers only  would complain because of her lack of screentime, if they decided to adapt without any changes.

[Dragon in the North]

Actually, a recent poll indicated that season 5 is less popular than season 7.

 

I may be reading your post wrong, but you make it sound that season 5 was a failure, which is far from the case. Sure, several of viewers thought it was the weakest season, but that’s not the same as saying it’s bad. After all, one of them had to be the weakest. Season 5 was still critically acclaimed, broke viewership records, and won many Emmys, including Best Drama.

 I don’t see any way a word for word adaptation would have worked. There’s simply too much filler, too many added subplots, and too many cliffhangers. The books also concentrate more on side characters rather than the Stark children, excluding Jon. Given that the books end many of their storylines without a proper climax also would have made a direct adaptation impossible.

[btfu806]

18 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Actually, a recent poll indicated that season 5 is less popular than season 7.

 

I may be reading your post wrong, but you make it sound that season 5 was a failure, which is far from the case. Sure, several of viewers thought it was the weakest season, but that’s not the same as saying it’s bad. After all, one of them had to be the weakest. Season 5 was still critically acclaimed, broke viewership records, and won many Emmys, including Best Drama.

 I don’t see any way a word for word adaptation would have worked. There’s simply too much filler, too many added subplots, and too many cliffhangers. The books also concentrate more on side characters rather than the Stark children, excluding Jon. Given that the books end many of their storylines without a proper climax also would have made a direct adaptation impossible.

This is an old debate at this point but a general consensus among viewers is season 5 started the crap train we are riding on now. Where a complex story became simplistic "OMG BREAK THE INTERNET" moments, let's just have constant explosions and make lots of dick jokes. Are there good parts to season 5, yeah, absolutely. Same with season 6 and with season 7. But there are a lot of plots that start season 5 that really are a mess and just really hinder the show, some of it I don't think the show has been able to really come back from.
If you want to hold critical acclaim, and use Emmy wins as a sign of a great show, sure you can do that, that's your prerogative. But I would also argue they (the Emmy people) realized how much of a mistake it was to not give GOT the best drama Emmy earlier and saw how it was starting to go downhill and wanted to make sure it got it in before it was too late (a Return of the King type moment ... but ya know ... for Emmys).

Could a word for word adaptation work? Maybe, maybe not. Sure you can trim out filler but they have done that since season 1 and it caused issues in later seasons, such as season 5. Looking at Sansa and Ramsey primarily with that. 

out of curiosity, what book concentrations on side characters are you talking about?

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

This is an old debate at this point but a general consensus among viewers is season 5 started the crap train we are riding on now. Where a complex story became simplistic "OMG BREAK THE INTERNET" moments, let's just have constant explosions and make lots of dick jokes. Are there good parts to season 5, yeah, absolutely. Same with season 6 and with season 7. But there are a lot of plots that start season 5 that really are a mess and just really hinder the show, some of it I don't think the show has been able to really come back from.

I can only assume you are getting this information from comments on the internet, which I will only say isn't very reliable. The vast majority of GOT's audience are casual viewers and don't spend much time theorizing on fan sites. If what you are saying is true and most viewers believe the show is going off the rails, viewership numbers wouldn't be rising every year. It would be the exact opposite. I'm not saying the show isn't without flaws, but no show is perfect. I'm currently doing a rematch of Breaking Bad and am noticing some significant flaws, but I still consider it my third favorite television show.

 

1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

If you want to hold critical acclaim, and use Emmy wins as a sign of a great show, sure you can do that, that's your prerogative. But I would also argue they (the Emmy people) realized how much of a mistake it was to not give GOT the best drama Emmy earlier and saw how it was starting to go downhill and wanted to make sure it got it in before it was too late (a Return of the King type moment ... but ya know ... for Emmys).

I'm not using viewership numbers, critical acclaim, and Emmy wins as evidence that GOT is a great show. That would be ridiculous, as quality is subjective and is determined by the individual. I am using them as evidence that season 5 was by no means a failure. If you think GOT didn't deserve their Emmy win for seasons 5 and 6, that's fine, we'll just agree to disagree.

 

1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

Could a word for word adaptation work? Maybe, maybe not. Sure you can trim out filler but they have done that since season 1 and it caused issues in later seasons, such as season 5. Looking at Sansa and Ramsey primarily with that. 

Without seriously trimming those books, the show would have run into the same problems Martin is now facing and might have written themselves into a corner, as he did. I'm glad they didn't make the same mistake.

 

1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

out of curiosity, what book concentrations on side characters are you talking about?

AFFC is the main culprit. Jon, Danerys, Tyrion, and Bran were all absent, whereas Sansa and Arya received maybe 3 chapters apiece. Cersei, Jaime, and Brienne were the stars of that book, and the rest of the chapters were divvied up among the Iron Islands and Dorne. The plot barely moved an inch.

[Nevets]

Part of the problem was that tried to fit books 4 and 5 into a season and a half (5 and part of 4).  Given how much material is in the two books, this is a very severe truncation.  Two full seasons would have made more sense.

The other big problem is the books themselves.  Several major characters (Arya, Sansa, Bran) have a minimal presence in the books.  They certainly don't have enough to fill out one season worth, much less two.  Another problem is that some other main characters have stories that are either tedious or repetitive.  (My opinion, of course.  Others may differ)  These include especially Tyrion and Daenerys.  And stories like that of Brienne and Sam meander too much and/or don't really go anywhere.  And don't even get me started on the likes of the Ironborn and Dorne <ugh!>

That said, they botched even perfectly good stories.  The North is a good filmable story pretty much as written, and the story in King's Landing is pretty cinematic as well.

I certainly don't think books 4 and 5 are unfilmable, but they definitely needed more effort than the previous 3.  Effort which the producers apparently did not feel like giving.

[Kandrax]

23 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Actually, a recent poll indicated that season 5 is less popular than season 7.

 

I may be reading your post wrong, but you make it sound that season 5 was a failure, which is far from the case. Sure, several of viewers thought it was the weakest season, but that’s not the same as saying it’s bad. After all, one of them had to be the weakest. Season 5 was still critically acclaimed, broke viewership records, and won many Emmys, including Best Drama.

 I don’t see any way a word for word adaptation would have worked. There’s simply too much filler, too many added subplots, and too many cliffhangers. The books also concentrate more on side characters rather than the Stark children, excluding Jon. Given that the books end many of their storylines without a proper climax also would have made a direct adaptation impossible.

I'm not saying that is failure like a movie that earns 1 at IMBD, even worst GOT season is better than average show. What i want to say is that season would still be considered weaker than previous ones.

Word to word adaptation would be impossible. Dann and David would  easily end in a jail thanks to one minor character that appears in Brienne' 7th chapter in the Inn before fight with Rorge, if it was portrayed word by word. As hint, i will say that similar character was almost overrun by Cat when she had returned to Riverrun.

[Dragon in the North]

5 hours ago, Kandrax said:

I'm not saying that is failure like a movie that earns 1 at IMBD, even worst GOT season is better than average show. What i want to say is that season would still be considered weaker than previous ones.

Word to word adaptation would be impossible. Dann and David would  easily end in a jail thanks to one minor character that appears in Brienne' 7th chapter in the Inn before fight with Rorge, if it was portrayed word by word. As hint, i will say that similar character was almost overrun by Cat when she had returned to Riverrun.

Season 5 was my least favorite season, but as you said, it was still great television in comparison with other shows. Thank you for your clarification.

[jcmontea]

On 9/6/2018 at 3:57 PM, Kandrax said:

Season 5 is seen, excluding season 7, as worst among them. However, S5 is loose adaptation of Feast and Dance. Both of these are seen as inferior toward first three. So does that means that any adaptation of book 4-5 is doomed to fail?

Doomed to fail it tough to say. 

What does it mean for an adaptation to fail? 

As someone pointed out, Season 5 still broke viewership ratings and won emmys. If that is failing than I want some more failure in my life. 

Now I do agree it was the weakest season.  

But does that mean it failed? Not really.

havint said that I think adapting books 4 and 4 was always going to be extremely tough. 

Those books were seen as weaker and don’t really lend themselves to straight adaptation

[btfu806]

17 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I can only assume you are getting this information from comments on the internet, which I will only say isn't very reliable. The vast majority of GOT's audience are casual viewers and don't spend much time theorizing on fan sites. If what you are saying is true and most viewers believe the show is going off the rails, viewership numbers wouldn't be rising every year. It would be the exact opposite. I'm not saying the show isn't without flaws, but no show is perfect. I'm currently doing a rematch of Breaking Bad and am noticing some significant flaws, but I still consider it my third favorite television show.

I get this information from watching the show. You're right in the end, it's all subjective but that's my subjective opinion of it. Ratings did dip in season 5 (though some of that was due to controversy) but obviously ratings are now up because people don't want to miss out on this final season. It's all that everyone talks about and they want to be part of it. But ratings did dip in season 5 and the overall season did BARELY any better than the previous season (considering each season previously was getting about 2 million more viewers on average).

17 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I'm not using viewership numbers, critical acclaim, and Emmy wins as evidence that GOT is a great show. That would be ridiculous, as quality is subjective and is determined by the individual. I am using them as evidence that season 5 was by no means a failure. If you think GOT didn't deserve their Emmy win for seasons 5 and 6, that's fine, we'll just agree to disagree.

It appears that you literally used viewership numbers and critical acclaim to suggest that the season was good by all standards. It also appears you used that in your argument above. But, I could be reading it wrong (which often is the case). But yes, you're right, let's agree to disagree.

17 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Without seriously trimming those books, the show would have run into the same problems Martin is now facing and might have written themselves into a corner, as he did. I'm glad they didn't make the same mistake.

I would argue they have already. But it's a very fair point you are making.

17 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

AFFC is the main culprit. Jon, Danerys, Tyrion, and Bran were all absent, whereas Sansa and Arya received maybe 3 chapters apiece. Cersei, Jaime, and Brienne were the stars of that book, and the rest of the chapters were divvied up among the Iron Islands and Dorne. The plot barely moved an inch.

Ah I gotcha. Dorne will be interesting to see if it has a bigger role in all of this and if there was a reason why it was added. I would assume the chapters about the Iron Islands is to help explain Euron and that he will be very important for the plot (of course, this is a huge assumption). The Brienne chapters I agree with, they really, really dragged. Cersei, I was a fan of, we really got into her head and understood pretty much how psycho she truly was. But yeah, I get what you're saying and you're right it did drag a lot. I guess I am just optimistic that there was a reason for all of it haha.

[Dragon in the North]

38 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

I get this information from watching the show. You're right in the end, it's all subjective but that's my subjective opinion of it. Ratings did dip in season 5 (though some of that was due to controversy) but obviously ratings are now up because people don't want to miss out on this final season. It's all that everyone talks about and they want to be part of it. But ratings did dip in season 5 and the overall season did BARELY any better than the previous season (considering each season previously was getting about 2 million more viewers on average).

But you said, "This is an old debate at this point but a general consensus among viewers is season 5 started the crap train we are riding on now." You are not just giving your subjective opinion here, you are speaking on behalf of the other viewers. It's true that season 5 wasn't as big of an increase as previous seasons, but it was still and increase so my point still stands.

41 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

It appears that you literally used viewership numbers and critical acclaim to suggest that the season was good by all standards. It also appears you used that in your argument above. But, I could be reading it wrong (which often is the case). But yes, you're right, let's agree to disagree.

You must be reading my post wrong then because I only used Emmy awards, viewership numbers and critical acclaim in response to my belief that the OP was saying season 5 was a failure. I also only used viewership numbers to counter your claim that most viewers think the show is going downhill. I have never once used these as absolute proof that the show is quality, as that is all subjective.

 

44 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

I would argue they have already. But it's a very fair point you are making.

You can say that the show has declined in quality, but you can't say they've written themselves into a corner. The show is still  moving its plot forward and is chugging along, so we're definitely going to get an ending next year. Martin, on the other hand, is obviously struggling to the point where it's not a certainty he'll be able to finish.

 

47 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

Ah I gotcha. Dorne will be interesting to see if it has a bigger role in all of this and if there was a reason why it was added. I would assume the chapters about the Iron Islands is to help explain Euron and that he will be very important for the plot (of course, this is a huge assumption). The Brienne chapters I agree with, they really, really dragged. Cersei, I was a fan of, we really got into her head and understood pretty much how psycho she truly was. But yeah, I get what you're saying and you're right it did drag a lot. I guess I am just optimistic that there was a reason for all of it haha.

I admit, I may be too harsh on those books, but I'm too frustrated to care. It's my believe that Feast and Dance will be the cause for the story never being finished. I've resigned myself to that fact and will simply have to make do with the tv show.

[btfu806]

35 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

But you said, "This is an old debate at this point but a general consensus among viewers is season 5 started the crap train we are riding on now." You are not just giving your subjective opinion here, you are speaking on behalf of the other viewers. It's true that season 5 wasn't as big of an increase as previous seasons, but it was still and increase so my point still stands.

Fair enough, I did lead with that. That's my bad. I was trying to make two points at once, obviously just failed twice.... I would say since it's numbers fell quite drastically that season about 20 percent there in the middle and in the end barely increase, it wasn't as much of a success and calling it breaking its own records is true, it is. It's just sounds like it had a much better season numbers than it did. But! that's just my interpretation and that doesn't make it true ... obviously.

 

38 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

You must be reading my post wrong then because I only used Emmy awards, viewership numbers and critical acclaim in response to my belief that the OP was saying season 5 was a failure. I also only used viewership numbers to counter your claim that most viewers think the show is going downhill. I have never once used these as absolute proof that the show is quality, as that is all subjective.

Ok ok I gotcha. One was to OP one was to me (more or less) and I thought you were doing it all to me. Fair enough.

38 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

You can say that the show has declined in quality, but you can't say they've written themselves into a corner. The show is still  moving its plot forward and is chugging along, so we're definitely going to get an ending next year. Martin, on the other hand, is obviously struggling to the point where it's not a certainty he'll be able to finish.

I mean, they wrote things where they had no idea what to do with them. The entire end of Season 5 was that since I assume they were counting on the sixth book to come out. But Arya just gets her eyesight back after a few episodes, no real reason to take it away. Jon pops back up two episodes later, nothing really changed. Bran becoming the three eyed raven still really serves no purpose yet besides that he is there to explain R+L=J ? That's insanely stupid.... Those are all situations of writing yourself into a corner and then just blowing up the corner and saying w/e with the consequences. Yes, the plot has moved forward but they stretch it at times...

And with GRRM, only time will tell I guess.. But GRRM could do that as well, but it just wouldn't make sense. The same way it doesn't make sense on the show.

43 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I admit, I may be too harsh on those books, but I'm too frustrated to care. It's my believe that Feast and Dance will be the cause for the story never being finished. I've resigned myself to that fact and will simply have to make do with the tv show.

I get it, I am right there with ya. Hopefully one day we get the full story of why this delay has happened. I assume (and obviously can be way wrong) there is much more to it than what happened in feast and dance. Personally, and maybe because I am an optimist when it comes to this, I think we will get a GRRM tWOW and possibly a Dream of Spring but I don't think the series will end. No way two books can end this and I think that's part of the problem. But yes, the show IMO is probably the best fanfic version of the books we will get for quite some time. Until someone else tries to do it better and we end up with what we have with LOTR now.

[btfu806]

10 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Doomed to fail it tough to say. 

What does it mean for an adaptation to fail? 

As someone pointed out, Season 5 still broke viewership ratings and won emmys. If that is failing than I want some more failure in my life. 

Now I do agree it was the weakest season.  

But does that mean it failed? Not really.

havint said that I think adapting books 4 and 4 was always going to be extremely tough. 

Those books were seen as weaker and don’t really lend themselves to straight adaptation

You bring up a good point here with "what does it mean to fail" because obviously, we are all going to have different opinions on this. The show did win awards and did squeak out of having slightly higher viewership numbers than the previous season. So in that way it didn't "fail." Issues with pacing and plot and other things, some would argue that it failed (though maybe failed is a harsh word for that). 

But I think in my other arguments on this thread I have failed to properly define the flaws of season 5 because you're right, fail may not be the right word...

 

Going back to the OP, I think also the biggest problem with books 4 and 5 is we still have no idea what they are leading to. 1-3 did a great job of kinda tying up some plot lines and giving closure while starting new things. 4 and 5 I feel like started a TON of things and we have no idea where a lot of it is going...

[alienarea]

IMHO the problems started with A Storm of Swords (the book) but weren't recognized then.

- Oberyn Martell is a great character, but why didn't he come to King's Landing about 15 years earlier?

- the whole Oberyn vs. the Mountain fight has the worst possible ending.

1) Either Oberyn should have killed the Mountain, then Tyrion would have been free without killing Tywin. We wouldn't crave for Cleganebowl, and Brienne were killing the Hound for good. Tyrion could go to Essos anyway, with or without strangling Shae before. 

2) Or, the Mountain kills Oberyn, and Tyrion is executed. Given his arc in books 4 and 5 this isn't a loss and would end his story in a good way. Nobody's safe.

- option 2) leads to the biggest failure of ASoS - Lady Stoneheart. Going with option 2) and skipping having Catelyn stay dead makes the Lannisters (minus Tyrion) the winners and would sum up the first three books nicely, leading into the five year gap. Maybe Tywin could die in the epilogue from choking on food or something trivial, putting Cersei in place.

- Without Tyrion, books 4 and 5 could be condensed into one.

[alostsister]

I don't believe the song has an ending. ASoIaF is " the song that never ends... it goes on an on my friend's. Some people started singin' it - not knowin' what it was, and they'll continue singin' it forever just becuz..."  Some parts of a song don't crescendo and harmonize, but that doesn't make them failures.

[btfu806]

1 hour ago, alienarea said:

IMHO the problems started with A Storm of Swords (the book) but weren't recognized then.

- Oberyn Martell is a great character, but why didn't he come to King's Landing about 15 years earlier?

- the whole Oberyn vs. the Mountain fight has the worst possible ending.

1) Either Oberyn should have killed the Mountain, then Tyrion would have been free without killing Tywin. We wouldn't crave for Cleganebowl, and Brienne were killing the Hound for good. Tyrion could go to Essos anyway, with or without strangling Shae before. 

2) Or, the Mountain kills Oberyn, and Tyrion is executed. Given his arc in books 4 and 5 this isn't a loss and would end his story in a good way. Nobody's safe.

- option 2) leads to the biggest failure of ASoS - Lady Stoneheart. Going with option 2) and skipping having Catelyn stay dead makes the Lannisters (minus Tyrion) the winners and would sum up the first three books nicely, leading into the five year gap. Maybe Tywin could die in the epilogue from choking on food or something trivial, putting Cersei in place.

- Without Tyrion, books 4 and 5 could be condensed into one.

In the books The Hound and Brienne never fought. But I definitely see your point with Oberyn issues in SOS.

Tyrion's whole purpose so far, besides being interesting, is to kill his father and introduce us to Young Griff. Hopefully there is a lot more to him in the future books...

[Apoplexy]

On 9/13/2018 at 3:24 PM, btfu806 said:

Tyrion's whole purpose so far, besides being interesting, is to kill his father and introduce us to Young Griff. Hopefully there is a lot more to him in the future books...

I think the reason YG was excluded from the show was that he wouldn't be significant with respect to the ending. Which makes me think he isn't going to last long in the books either.

[Kandrax]

20 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

I think the reason YG was excluded from the show was that he wouldn't be significant with respect to the ending. Which makes me think he isn't going to last long in the books either.

Or maybe they don't wanted to confirm whether he is Aegon or not.

[Angel Eyes]

On 9/22/2018 at 10:54 PM, Apoplexy said:

I think the reason YG was excluded from the show was that he wouldn't be significant with respect to the ending. Which makes me think he isn't going to last long in the books either.

If he was going to make an impact on the story, he would have been introduced earlier. Same with Quentyn Martell. 

My main criticisms of Season 5 onward lie with the plots in the North. I could give a detailed explanation if anyone would like.

My summary of Season 5 is that while GRRM doesn’t want his good guys to win all the time, D&D would cheat so the bad guys win.