Jump to content

Not sure where to post this, but this is regarding A Song of Ice and Fire and what may be the main difference between it and Game of Thrones


Crazy Old Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2022 at 3:39 PM, Megorova said:

In my opinion, regarding the books the differences are - is that there is a Blackfyre-plotline, and Varys here is one of them (at least I think so) and not a secret Targaryen-loyalist; Barristan Selmy is still alive, even in TWOW; there's Lady Stoneheart; Quaithe in the books played bigger role, guiding Dany and giving her advices and warnings on several occasions (additionally, in my opinion, she is Shiera Seastar and the Three-Eyed Crow); so who's that mysterious three-eyed bird is in the books, is also different; in the books "the dragon has three heads", so eventually there's going to be three dragonriders; the Faceless Men in GRRM's version has more important role (though the other readers, excluding me and a few others, still are unaware of it); in the books the "Targaryen-madness" is caused by poison - basilisk blood (the Faceless Men for generations were poisoning various Targaryens with all sorts of substances that caused their insanity, fertility problems, mental diseases (like in case with Vaela - daughter of prince Daeron, Gael the Winter Child - daughter of Jaehaerys I, Rhaegel - son of Daeron II, and probably also Tommen Baratheon (because FM didn't knew that him and Joffrey (whom the FM were poisoning with vasilisk blood) were not Robert's children, and thus shouldn't have had "Targaryen-madness", or some other kind of mental disease that was (falsely) typical for those people that were dragonseeds)).

 

@Crazy Old Guy everything in bold red is important.

Those are huge changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

If something is the "same but different," then nothing about it is the same. It's simply different.

 

I think you're reading way too much into that statement, but they're the author's words, not mine. 

I took it to mean that the oversell strokes of the story are going to be the same or similar but the details will be different or more fleshed out.

Of course it could just as easily be one of Martin's non answers he gives so often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/23/2022 at 7:10 PM, Apoplexy said:

The showrunners did not give show viewers enough credit. They assumed show viewers would be confused by any amount of nuance. I think thats why all characters seem like one dimensional caricatures. I do know a lot of casual show only viewers who only knew the names (barely) of the main characters. But I think even those viewers would have appreciated some nuance in characters. And I cannot help but say that the showrunners were lazy. After a point it seemed like too much of an effort to introduce anything but one dimensional characters.

Yes. I think it's a self-fulfilling thing too. If a show is simple then the viewers aren't going to bother getting too invested. But if a show has some nuance and complexity then I believe the viewers would make more of an effort. But as we know those showrunners clearly thought viewers were stupid and that was that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

Yes. I think it's a self-fulfilling thing too. If a show is simple then the viewers aren't going to bother getting too invested. But if a show has some nuance and complexity then I believe the viewers would make more of an effort. But as we know those showrunners clearly thought viewers were stupid and that was that.

Their attitude (and it permeates many modern movies) is that plotting and characterisation don't really matter if it looks impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb and dumber did not understand both the world of asoiaf and its characters. They were just some glory hunters that happened to stumble upon martins world. They read the book as if they were reading a script. They saw all the suspense and all the drama and good shit your average viewer loves. They saw stars in their eyes and were ready to kick it into 3rd gear. They even admitted that the red wedding was the reason they wanted to adapt the books.

I have this theory that the reason Martin stopped working with them after season 4 is because they refused to follow his advice and implement characters like lady stoneheart and young griff and many others. But they also decided to cover 2 books in one season. They had no intention in staying much longer with this tv show. HBO shouldve fired them when it was clear that they werent gonna keep going. But in their eyes these idiots had so much success that they went with the whole don’t fix what ain’t broken thing (and can’t blame them).

To sum it up they used GOT as a way to skyrocket their success and attempt to reach their peak with other projects. But sadly they didn’t realise that GOT already was their peak.

Edited by The Young Maester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 6:38 AM, Lady Anna said:

Yes. I think it's a self-fulfilling thing too. If a show is simple then the viewers aren't going to bother getting too invested. But if a show has some nuance and complexity then I believe the viewers would make more of an effort. But as we know those showrunners clearly thought viewers were stupid and that was that.

Exactly. The showruuners were too lazy to bother with nuance and character development as the seasons progressed. And when the later seasons weren't received as well as the previous seasons, instead of acknowledging their error and putting more effort towards the plot, they just assumed viewers were too stupid to keep the characters straight. And then they amped up visual spectacles and completely abandoned a coherent plot by the final season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

And when the later seasons weren't received as well as the previous seasons, instead of acknowledging their error and putting more effort towards the plot, they just assumed viewers were too stupid to keep the characters straight. And then they amped up visual spectacles and completely abandoned a coherent plot by the final season.

Kind of like the sequel trilogy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I apologize, but the OP on this thread is completely wrong on a couple things, in my opinion anyway. Dany being a "Mary Sue" for one. Yes, the term is often misused, but she is almost the complete opposite of a M.S. She gets nothing handed to her freely. She is sold, raped, beaten, abandoned, has her dragons stolen, loses her husband, unborn child, and many other examples. She also builds her power and influence slowly and initially relies heavily on council from Jorah and others. A true M.S. is good at everything instantly, is liked by everyone, has no real obstacles that pose a threat, and other problematic features as well. Rey in the new Star Wars movies is an example I see used a lot, and I tend to agree with this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...