Jump to content

Benioff and Weiss didn't necessarily make problems, they just made things worse


Angel Eyes

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

Aragorn and Gandalf never meant to win, their army at the Black Gate was a distraction so that Frodo and Sam could get the Ring up Mount Doom and destroy it.

Yep. Like Gandalf said. Sauron and Saruman never ever believed someone with the ring would rather destroy it than use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2021 at 6:03 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Jon, Daenerys, and Arya are all built up as possible "chosen ones" and 1 of the 3 does the job - tough for the Jon/Dany stans, but otherwise quite straightforward high fantasy...

 

Oh I completely disagree.

Arya was never built up as a chosen one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Oh I completely disagree.

Arya was never built up as a chosen one.

Less than the other 2, but definitely was in 8.3 - and before that Jaqen H'ghar behavior was implying sth in that direction esp. his last shot; his face expressions in s2 as well.

Basically Arya and Bran share the Luke/Neo storyline and Jon/Daenerys/Stannis take the Aragorn spot, roughly speaking; the tropes are all mixed up and combined of course:

 the special chosen one who's supposed to do some magic ritual thing, the spiritual psychic who's to tap into some otherworldly force and help from there, the prophesized victorious duelist, the conqueror king messiah - all 5 share combinations of these various functions typical for "chosen ones".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 8:00 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Aragorn and Gandalf never meant to win, their army at the Black Gate was a distraction so that Frodo and Sam could get the Ring up Mount Doom and destroy it.

Well yeah - as it tends to be said on some of the more civilized corners of the worldwide web, it never began for them. Lol.

It's over for Jon, but it never began for Aragorn.

 

To some extent this might be due to writing flaws in Lotr and not all of its elements getting their full "pay-offs" though - like did they ever go into detail about what kind of "power" the ring was supposed to give Gondor if they took it? Or whether the Gondorohan forces were supposed to be hopelessly outmatched by Sauron's military might vs. standing a decent chance under proper leadership?

Clearly Sauron and the nazgul were very limited in their physical power, and had to rely on orcs, allies and collaborators a lot - and they did get beaten at MT?

So I'm quite rusty atm, but there does seem to be a heavy dissonance there, about just how awesome the big heroes were supposed to be vs. humble and "nothing without the gods".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well yeah - as it tends to be said on some of the more civilized corners of the worldwide web, it never began for them. Lol.

It's over for Jon, but it never began for Aragorn.

 

To some extent this might be due to writing flaws in Lotr and not all of its elements getting their full "pay-offs" though - like did they ever go into detail about what kind of "power" the ring was supposed to give Gondor if they took it? Or whether the Gondorohan forces were supposed to be hopelessly outmatched by Sauron's military might vs. standing a decent chance under proper leadership?

Clearly Sauron and the nazgul were very limited in their physical power, and had to rely on orcs, allies and collaborators a lot - and they did get beaten at MT?

So I'm quite rusty atm, but there does seem to be a heavy dissonance there, about just how awesome the big heroes were supposed to be vs. humble and "nothing without the gods".

With practice, the Ring gives one power over the wills of others.  One can use it to build loyal, and subservient armies.

I take it that Sauron's fear was that if a powerful enemy took control of the Ring, they'd use it to turn his own forces against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

With practice, the Ring gives one power over the wills of others.  One can use it to build loyal, and subservient armies.

I take it that Sauron's fear was that if a powerful enemy took control of the Ring, they'd use it to turn his own forces against him.

Ah hm, so like a hypnotic charisma enhancer?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 4:24 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Less than the other 2, but definitely was in 8.3 - and before that Jaqen H'ghar behavior was implying sth in that direction esp. his last shot; his face expressions in s2 as well.

So you're saying that Arya was built up as the chosen one in the same exact hour-long episode as her big moment? And that certain ambiguous facial expressions that she received seasons before from a minor character support the build-up and foreshadowing?

Sure, Jan.

On 8/13/2021 at 4:24 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Basically Arya and Bran share the Luke/Neo storyline and Jon/Daenerys/Stannis take the Aragorn spot, roughly speaking; the tropes are all mixed up and combined of course:

Stannis is not an Aragorn. Stannis is a red herring, a false king. He's his own entity: he is the true Baratheon heir but the claim of the Baratheon heir is weak compared to the claims of both the Starks over the North (and the Riverlands if you want to talk about the current generation of Starks) and the Targaryens over the entire continent.

Bran as the Chosen One, I totally agree with. Arya as the Chosen One? Eh, I feel and believe similarly but that mainly applies to the real, book version of Arya. In the TV show, Arya as the Chosen One is completely baseless.

On 8/13/2021 at 4:24 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

the special chosen one who's supposed to do some magic ritual thing, the spiritual psychic who's to tap into some otherworldly force and help from there, the prophesized victorious duelist, the conqueror king messiah - all 5 share combinations of these various functions typical for "chosen ones".

Special chosen one whose supposed to do some magic ritual thing? Well, for one, the ritual has to be performed by themselves personally and it has to be successful. So that counts out Stannis. It has Dany's name written all over it. Bran is a very distant second as it is.

The spiritual whose to tap into some otherworldly force and help from there? That's Dany and Bran with the rest of the Stark kids trailing them. Again: not Stannis. He doesn't even really believe in it...yet. I have my own predictions for Stannis and his relationship with these otherworldly forces and none of them are heroic.

The prophesized victorious duelist? This one is more up for debate. Based on what we have now, it would actually be Brienne. Or Jaime. Maybe Jon. Arya? Very iffy? Dany? Also iffy but more likely than Arya. We have had absolutely nothing about Stannis' skill and performance and achievements in battle. He is more of a general than a warrior/duelist

The conqueror messiah-king? Again, Dany outpaces everyone else. Jon would be a very distant second. Even if my predictions for Arya and/or Rickon's storylines in A Dream of Spring come true, they still wouldn't be it.

Not Stannis. Yes, he never ever gives up...but he loses. All the time.

On 8/13/2021 at 5:24 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Ah hm, so like a hypnotic charisma enhancer?

Yes and no.

I always saw it as a hive mind, Cerebro (the device for psychics used in X-Men mythos) thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2021 at 3:59 PM, BlackLightning said:

So you're saying that Arya was built up as the chosen one in the same exact hour-long episode as her big moment? And that certain ambiguous facial expressions that she received seasons before from a minor character support the build-up and foreshadowing?

1) Well yeah, was. You said wasn't, so who's correct lol

2a) Lol how is H'ghar a "minor character", he's the main central mentor of this protagonist's supernatural arc (which is the one relevant to this topic) and had loads of screentime in s5-6;

the book version you might call "minor", but even there he's the subject of one of a big mystery plot and hype/speculation.

2b) I might've unintentionally downplayed the whole thing with the "ambiguous expressions" phrase - that mainly applies to the way he acts at the beginning while in the cage; his last scene in s2 had a very strong "you're meant for some big meaningful destiny" vibe and gravitas to it - which, again, is particularly noteworthy since it's an obvious change from the book version (where he essentially just goes "hey, not bad; might wanna come train ix you feel like it").

And his final shot in s6 where he smirks after Arya leaves, couldn't be a clearer message either; the only thing that wasn't clear at that point, was *what* important thing Arya was supposed to accomplish out there, and whether it would have anything to do with the WWs.

Just like...

3) Melisandre's original prediction - which was CLEARLY presented as sth important, but, given how the "blue eyes" part was moved to the end and given emphasis in 8.3, wasn't originally referring to destroying the undead - by Melisandre, but possibly not by the writers either;

so in-universe she must've seen the "completed vision" in that Volantis temple, but it could've also been a retcon.

 

In either case it was clear that Arya was headiing for some kind of "special destiny" down the road - however it may have been originally planned to be something else entirely.

 

Sure, Jan.

Hugh Jan?

On 8/16/2021 at 3:59 PM, BlackLightning said:

Stannis is not an Aragorn. Stannis is a red herring, a false king. He's his own entity: he is the true Baratheon heir but the claim of the Baratheon heir is weak compared to the claims of both the Starks over the North (and the Riverlands if you want to talk about the current generation of Starks) and the Targaryens over the entire continent.

We don't know how the future predictions thing works in this universe - whether, for instance, different outcomes are possible, and sb "meant" / foreseen to do something, can fail at it, and then leave the possibility for a different person also predicted to do that same thing, to try and succeed/fail.

Melisandre thought he was the One, and they both clearly saw something in the fire that apparently didn't end up happening - so maybe he did have a shot at one point;

or even if not, if he was a "red herring" (maybe even an in-universe red herring, with some entity sending misleading fire visions), well, the plot and Mel *were* building him up for 4 seasons, so I just included him on the list lol.

 

As to the whole Baratheon thing, well that was the "worldly" side of his ambition - so not of direct relevance here (although the potential relation between this political inheritance right and his additional supposed supernatural worldsaving predestination would play a crucial role in the plot - for the other 4 characters as well).

 

 

On 8/16/2021 at 3:59 PM, BlackLightning said:

Bran as the Chosen One, I totally agree with. Arya as the Chosen One? Eh, I feel and believe similarly but that mainly applies to the real, book version of Arya. In the TV show, Arya as the Chosen One is completely baseless.

Well the added emphasis in the Jaqen scenes are a clear counter-example - at least in this area, the show "implied" that much stronger than the book; and in s6 it removed all doubt.

On 8/16/2021 at 3:59 PM, BlackLightning said:

Special chosen one whose supposed to do some magic ritual thing? Well, for one, the ritual has to be performed by themselves personally and it has to be successful. So that counts out Stannis. It has Dany's name written all over it. Bran is a very distant second as it is.

Well Stannis failed;

in the show, Daenerys and Jon came close during the dragonbowl, and then Jon potentially had a shot on the ground; they did separate him from his dragon though.

Bran's role as an omniscient bait may have been a change from the original plan, but I guess it did work out and he wouldn't have greenlit it otherwise... idk.

 

The "ritual" bit was the NK's keystone mechanism which they "figured out" during the wight hunt - maybe originally Sam was gonna discover this or sth else in the libraries, who knows.

 

 

The spiritual whose to tap into some otherworldly force and help from there? That's Dany and Bran with the rest of the Stark kids trailing them. Again: not Stannis. He doesn't even really believe in it...yet. I have my own predictions for Stannis and his relationship with these otherworldly forces and none of them are heroic.

The prophesized victorious duelist? This one is more up for debate. Based on what we have now, it would actually be Brienne. Or Jaime. Maybe Jon. Arya? Very iffy? Dany? Also iffy but more likely than Arya. We have had absolutely nothing about Stannis' skill and performance and achievements in battle. He is more of a general than a warrior/duelist

The conqueror messiah-king? Again, Dany outpaces everyone else. Jon would be a very distant second. Even if my predictions for Arya and/or Rickon's storylines in A Dream of Spring come true, they still wouldn't be it.

Not Stannis. Yes, he never ever gives up...but he loses. All the time.

 

Whoa there, not a Stannis stan I see eh? 

The fact that he was meant to win the throne, suggests that either he was necessary as a leader of of realm to, well, lead the defense against the dead - or maybe him sitting on the throne would've worked as a "ritual" that would somehow result in victory. 

As for the other 4, well it's obvious what roles they ended up playing on the show, and the books will prob do it differently - the other Starks also being psychic is one major difference, and if the Others have no leader and/or no keystone weakness, then there probably won't be any big built-up "duel" to begin with;

the "mock duel" in the opening chapter might be a clue on how things may or may not go, in that regard.

And then there's all the different versions of the "chosen hero" from the different cultures, from which maybe the truth will have to be reconstructed somehow; whatever Euron's gonna do (Deep Ones hopefully?) etc., seems to be heading completely elsewhere;

and even the show was gonna do sth different and then scrapped it (snow covered KL etc.).

 

always saw it as a hive mind, Cerebro (the device for psychics used in X-Men mythos) thing.

Ah, interesting; hm, can the fact that this isn't really made clear be seen as a "flaw" I wonder? Or was it meant to be left open as a mystery?

The way Gollum was "bound" to loyalty "by the Ring" seemed to be intended as the latter - sth hidden from the auduence, only comprehensible to the 2 junkies; on the other hand Denethor&sons, Gandalf and Galadriel seemed to have a very clear idea about it, but it wasn't really made clear? Not sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The two D's admitted that they had Arya kill the Night King, because it would be a surprise.  They also thought of having the Hound kill him for the same reason.  

Well they must've kinda forgotten about their own build-up that they wrote - in s2, s6, s8, and the entire episode; it wasn't a surprise lol.

 

And Hound was also set up to do sth in this area, so wouldn't have been a surprise either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 10:41 AM, SeanF said:

The two D's admitted that they had Arya kill the Night King, because it would be a surprise.  They also thought of having the Hound kill him for the same reason.  

Contrast Gollum taking the Ring from Frodo being foreshadowed in the first Lord of the Rings book where Gandalf says that Gollum has a role to play in the story that not even he knows precisely; the lesson with Gollum is that one act, for good or for ill, can make a difference. Bilbo's pity in The Hobbit paid dividends down the line.

Arya being the Princess on the other hand had already been resolved via the mass poisoning of the Freys (lots of eyes she closed that night) and her importance was dropped in with no warning.

 

On 8/19/2021 at 12:14 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well they must've kinda forgotten about their own build-up that they wrote - in s2, s6, s8, and the entire episode; it wasn't a surprise lol.

 

And Hound was also set up to do sth in this area, so wouldn't have been a surprise either.

 

D&D forgot quite a bit of their own stuff; remember the conversation between Arya and Sansa in Season 7 where Arya said that she'd never hobnob with the Lannisters and saw Sansa not trying to stop Ned's execution? Sansa was screaming for someone to stop Ned from being executed and, of course, Arya's conversations with Tywin.

So yeah, D&D forgot their own plots.


Arya talking about the execution

Arya talking to Tywin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Arya being the Princess on the other hand had already been resolved via the mass poisoning of the Freys (lots of eyes she closed that night) and her importance was dropped in with no warning.

Even from the purely worldly perspective, the Freys couldn't have been the end of it - and they weren't gonna be, since obviously she was out to get Cersei;

the Mountain was also stilll on her list, but somehow that no longer came up in 8.4-5, even though them BOTH being after Gregor was a topic of conversation in s2-4.

Him being undead, possibly in similar ways to the wights (or not), wasn't being acknowledged in any way either - its relevance to the revenge motive, possible need for special blades or fire, them just coming fresh from fighting the dead to going after another one etc. (even though the horned fucker *did* come up in the conversation)

Hound was scared of fire, and then that came up plenty in his WW quests, in various ways - but now he's going after Mountain, who's now joined the undead and may or may not be exclusively vulnerable to fire... quite a few connections left unused and unacknowledged there.

 

So then Arya starts e6 with a death glare at Daenerys, looking about to put her on the list in Cersei's place - but then just talks about it to Jon instead; that ultimately left out confrontation might've been the great pay-off to Arya's revenge quest - however, well, it was left out; no pay-off.

 

However, just as the Hound was steered towards the fight against the Walkers and assumed some kind of prophetic, spiritual role in it, Arya's storyline also has a crucial spiritual side to it - and not just in the dry pragmatic sense of training with sorcerers to acquire strength and power to kill those war criminals; but there's also a mystical, messianic dimension there, particularly pronounced in Jaqen's demeanor in his s2 exit, along with the ethereal leitmotifs playing in the revenge scenes etc.

Very clearly, H'ghar was seeing much bigger things in her "path" than merely killing a few knights and vassals - and while that could've been anything, in retrospect/hindsight it seems to have been the WWs - so yeah.

 

And it's not entirely random either - the Great Other is one of the Death God's faces after all; so various potential connections between the WWs and FM are conceivable.

And then Arya saw a resurrection happening (of Beric, who came to act as a mentor to the Hound as well), and is quite obsessed with this metaphysical representation of Death - most directly this came up in that knife-throwing scene.

 

So long story short, it had been set up, and was not a surprise. 

 

 

 

Quote

D&D forgot quite a bit of their own stuff; remember the conversation between Arya and Sansa in Season 7 where Arya said that she'd never hobnob with the Lannisters and saw Sansa not trying to stop Ned's execution? Sansa was screaming for someone to stop Ned from being executed and, of course, Arya's conversations with Tywin.

So yeah, D&D forgot their own plots.


Arya talking about the execution

Arya talking to Tywin

 

I don't remember every line from those scenes atm, however Arya was definitely supposed to be quite irrational there - getting defensive and sort of panicky after getting refuted by Sansa on a given point;

 

if on top of that in-universe irrationality and sloppy thinking, the writers themselves also succumbed to memory loss (as they did on many other occasions), that'd be quite funny lol

 

 

Edit: Wrote this post while falling asleep lol - seems to be dementia free though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think most of the problems with how the series concluded were the result of story threads that were sabotaged after the show overtook the books, so I don't really see how season 8's flaws can be traced back to GRRM.

My main problems with season 8 were:

a) The Night King and the manner of defeating the White Walkers was the worst thing about the show climax IMO, and that was completely David and Dan's invention.

b) Dornish plot being completely pointless...that's the show's fault for butchering it.

c) Tyrion and Varrys becoming idiots...also the show's doing

d) Dany becoming a villain within the space of two episodes...GRRM hasn't had a chance to write her full arc so he can't be blamed for what happened

e) The manner in which Bran becomes king...completely ludicrous in the show and not something that GRRM has had a chance to do yet so how can he be blamed? Granted, at the point where the books are currently, for the life of me I just can't see how GRRM will make Bran as king a satisfying and believable conclusion.

f) Jon Snow having no agency and becoming a weak character. Also, GRRM hasn't had a chance to write his full arc yet.

But it goes without saying that GRRM made David and Dan's jobs harder by, well, not finishing the books on time and creating loads of meandering plot threads.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/10/2021 at 8:19 AM, Darryk said:

But it goes without saying that GRRM made David and Dan's jobs harder by, well, not finishing the books on time and creating loads of meandering plot threads.

Nah, I don't believe that.

If someone gives you the beginning and middle of the story, leaves you to write the ending and you butcher/ruin/spoil the ending that you created, then that's 100% on you.

David and Dan didn't even fully (or faithfully) adapt the books that they had to work with.

So it's inexcusable to me.

On 9/10/2021 at 8:19 AM, Darryk said:

f) Jon Snow having no agency and becoming a weak character. Also, GRRM hasn't had a chance to write his full arc yet.

To be honest, Jon Snow had always been a weak character with little agency in the show.

Compare season 3 and 4 Jon to book Jon from Storm and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't read through most of this thread, but here's my take on the issue of Martin vs. D&D:

The issue isn't really with the larger plot beats and ideas, per se, as much as the execution of things. Martin can take a seemingly ridiculous and/or uninteresting situation and make it compelling because he's an excellent writer that understands how to create memorable characters and dialogue that flows naturally. I could read a whole chapter of Jon and Stannis arguing about accounting discrepancies and it would be enthralling because of how well realised, consistent and interesting these characters are. Martin very rarely resorts to cringy, juvenile and obvious jokes like D&D constantly did, even between highly intelligent and cunning characters (worst example being Tyrion and Varys). The humour is usually dryer and more restrained and consistent with the characters.

The backstory of the characters and the world are more relevant, and inform the decisions of characters and their motivations. Things don't just come out of nowhere when it's convenient for the plot. Rereading the series with an analytical eye shows just how superb Martin is at planting seeds for future developments; even if it takes a very long time for things to come to fruition, he's willing to be patient. D&D were not. They either completely abandoned things that were set up in the early seasons, or they didn't even include these things to begin with. Several twists and reveals in the later seasons felt bizarre because of how little D&D foreshadowed things, and reminded the audience of these things (e.g. Benjen). 

The final issue is that D&D were, for the most part, afraid of showing the darker edges to many of the characters. The most notable example is of course Tyrion, who is essentially a completely different character in the show. But there are others too: Catelyn's dislike of Jon was lessened and her prejudice against bastards in general completely removed; Arya's more sociopathic tendencies are severely reduced; several of Cersei's most heinous actions are either given to other characters or removed entirely; Jorah's creepiness and manipulativeness was pretty much absent, etc. You get the idea.

I could really write a whole thesis on why Martin is a better writer and storyteller. But it really comes down to a couple of main, overriding points: Martin's writing is patient, consistent and nuanced. D&D's was not. The big plot events or twists aren't really an issue, it's just how they both went about them. To D&D, detail is not a priority, only the big picture matters. To Martin, detail is everything, and it's why his version of the story feels so much deeper and rewarding. Until the start of season 6, both writers essentially told the same story; it was the details and all the smaller things that set them so far apart. And all those small things add up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

I haven't read through most of this thread, but here's my take on the issue of Martin vs. D&D:

The issue isn't really with the larger plot beats and ideas, per se, as much as the execution of things. Martin can take a seemingly ridiculous and/or uninteresting situation and make it compelling because he's an excellent writer that understands how to create memorable characters and dialogue that flows naturally. I could read a whole chapter of Jon and Stannis arguing about accounting discrepancies and it would be enthralling because of how well realised, consistent and interesting these characters are. Martin very rarely resorts to cringy, juvenile and obvious jokes like D&D constantly did, even between highly intelligent and cunning characters (worst example being Tyrion and Varys). The humour is usually dryer and more restrained and consistent with the characters.

The backstory of the characters and the world are more relevant, and inform the decisions of characters and their motivations. Things don't just come out of nowhere when it's convenient for the plot. Rereading the series with an analytical eye shows just how superb Martin is at planting seeds for future developments; even if it takes a very long time for things to come to fruition, he's willing to be patient. D&D were not. They either completely abandoned things that were set up in the early seasons, or they didn't even include these things to begin with. Several twists and reveals in the later seasons felt bizarre because of how little D&D foreshadowed things, and reminded the audience of these things (e.g. Benjen). 

The final issue is that D&D were, for the most part, afraid of showing the darker edges to many of the characters. The most notable example is of course Tyrion, who is essentially a completely different character in the show. But there are others too: Catelyn's dislike of Jon was lessened and her prejudice against bastards in general completely removed; Arya's more sociopathic tendencies are severely reduced; several of Cersei's most heinous actions are either given to other characters or removed entirely; Jorah's creepiness and manipulativeness was pretty much absent, etc. You get the idea.

I could really write a whole thesis on why Martin is a better writer and storyteller. But it really comes down to a couple of main, overriding points: Martin's writing is patient, consistent and nuanced. D&D's was not. The big plot events or twists aren't really an issue, it's just how they both went about them. To D&D, detail is not a priority, only the big picture matters. To Martin, detail is everything, and it's why his version of the story feels so much deeper and rewarding. Until the start of season 6, both writers essentially told the same story; it was the details and all the smaller things that set them so far apart. And all those small things add up. 

I don't think they were successful in whitewashing Tyrion, given his willingness to starve the people of Kings Landing to death, and given his record as a senior figure in an absolutely murderous regime headed by his father and sister - but they did their best, to the detriment of the story.  They told us that he was was very clever ,  They showed us that he was grossly incompetent (if not actually trying to ensure that his siblings did not lose)  The Starks were definitely whitewashed, compared to the books.  Robb's soldiers were only just slightly less brutal than the Lannisters in the books, but that was only hinted at in the show. Jon was made into more of a suffering saint, than the rather ruthless (if still broadly sympathetic) figure that he is in the books. Jorah is a piece of shit in the books, but as you say, completely whitewashed in the show.

In general, I agree with all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't think they were successful in whitewashing Tyrion, given his willingness to starve the people of Kings Landing to death, and given his record as a senior figure in an absolutely murderous regime headed by his father and sister - but they did their best, to the detriment of the story.  They told us that he was was very clever ,  They showed us that he was grossly incompetent (if not actually trying to ensure that his siblings did not lose)  The Starks were definitely whitewashed, compared to the books.  Robb's soldiers were only just slightly less brutal than the Lannisters in the books, but that was only hinted at in the show. Jon was made into more of a suffering saint, than the rather ruthless (if still broadly sympathetic) figure that he is in the books. Jorah is a piece of shit in the books, but as you say, completely whitewashed in the show.

In general, I agree with all of this.

Full disclosure: I actually haven't seen the last three seasons, so I can't speak on how Tyrion is portrayed there (though the short clips I've seen are not impressive). But in the first five seasons he's whitewashed so much that the mocking nickname "Saint Tyrion" is completely fitting. Here's a list, off the top of my head, of the darker/more questionable things he says/does in the books that the show did not portray:

  • Breaking Marillion's fingers because the singer made a mocking song about him (aGoT)
  • Plotting brutal revenge against the entire Vale for his imprisonment - not just Lysa, but the whole region (aGoT)
  • Casually dismissing war crimes and atrocities against peasants - "I believe they call that war" (aGoT)
  • Slapping Shae when she mocks him (aCoK)
  • Threatening to beat and rape Tommen if Alayaya is hurt (aCoK)
  • Having Symon Silver Tongue murdered for writing a song about him (aSoS)
  • Telling Jaime that he killed Joffrey, and that he'll kill the rest of their family (aSoS)
  • Murdering Shae in a cold rage rather than self-defense (aSoS)
  • Every single thing in A Dance with Dragons, but especially the bit where he rapes a slave

There's a lot of smaller things here and there, mostly dialogue that makes Tyrion come off as meaner and pettier than he's depicted in the show, but these were the major things that D&D intentionally omitted to make the character nicer. It's clear that D&D were too easily swayed by how much they personally liked the actors/actresses playing the characters, and that this influenced how they wrote them. They wrote their idealised (or in some cases demonised) visions of what certain characters should be, not what they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

There's a lot of smaller things here and there, mostly dialogue that makes Tyrion come off as meaner and pettier than he's depicted in the show, but these were the major things that D&D intentionally omitted to make the character nicer. It's clear that D&D were too easily swayed by how much they personally liked the actors/actresses playing the characters, and that this influenced how they wrote them. They wrote their idealised (or in some cases demonised) visions of what certain characters should be, not what they actually are.

In the case of Lena Headey, what happened? They made her idealized version in the show (all the way to pulling improbable wins out the wazoo in Season 7), then dropped her character like a sack of potatoes for the last season since she barely does anything other than stare out of windows and drink wine.

Regarding Peter Dinklage, it's certainly possible that the show's Tyrion is what they think he should be, as playing the book's version is well within Dinklage's wheelhouse given some of his roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't think they were successful in whitewashing Tyrion, given his willingness to starve the people of Kings Landing to death, and given his record as a senior figure in an absolutely murderous regime headed by his father and sister - but they did their best, to the detriment of the story.  They told us that he was was very clever ,  They showed us that he was grossly incompetent (if not actually trying to ensure that his siblings did not lose)  The Starks were definitely whitewashed, compared to the books.  Robb's soldiers were only just slightly less brutal than the Lannisters in the books, but that was only hinted at in the show. Jon was made into more of a suffering saint, than the rather ruthless (if still broadly sympathetic) figure that he is in the books. Jorah is a piece of shit in the books, but as you say, completely whitewashed in the show.

In general, I agree with all of this.

I don't really think Arya was whitewashed, particularly in Season 7; she wanted to take Sansa's face on a whim and was a massive hypocrite regarding Seasons 1 and 2 (read: the Tywin and Arya scenes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...