Show Changes to the Story That You Liked

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

The show's ending sucked. Everyone and their dog knows it. But that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to discuss things changed/added into the story that were never there in the books. For example, I liked how Missandei was aged up to be a middle-aged adult rather than the child she was in the books. Another thing I liked that was added were the conversations between Arya and Tywin. I liked the chemistry between the two there.

Any other changes/additions to the story in the show that you felt were good?

[SeanF]

At the time, I liked the conversations between Arya and Tywin, but they led nowhere, and it was a mistake to soften Tywin’s character.

I liked Margaery getting a bigger role than in the books, and the portrayal of Olenna. That’s about it, I think.

[Nevets]

Osha is a more interesting character on the show.

I prefer Jon's claim for why he deserted; that he was disgusted by the alliance with Craster, even though they knew he was sacrificing male babies.  I never really liked the one from the book, about being a bastard.

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Osha is a more interesting character on the show.

I prefer Jon's claim for why he deserted; that he was disgusted by the alliance with Craster, even though they knew he was sacrificing male babies.  I never really liked the one from the book, about being a bastard.

Good point.  It is more plausible.

It also shows that the Watch were fighting in a bad cause.

 

[Walda]

Not just Osha. Talisa Maegyr was a more interesting character than Jane Westerling. Jane has the love potion theory to explain why so slight a character as herself was chosen at such cost to be his queen, but Talisa needs no such excuses. Talisa was also a way of getting a sneak preview of Volantis, long before the show went there. I loved her scene with Martyn Lanister and Tion Frey, too.

Myranda (Ramsey's lover) was another great character - better than Kyra and Palla combined, in my opinion. 

In general, as long as they had the real story to give them structure and steer their story to navigable routes, D&D did a great job of "improving" female characters. 

Brienne, Catelyn, Cersei, Margaery, Missandei, Dany were all the better as characters for it. I think show Lancel with perfect physical health but turning into an unhinged zealot was a great move too.

But of course, these choices have consequences. I love book Myranda, but she becomes imposible with the merging of Harry the Heir and fArya into Ramsey and Sansa.

Plot-wise, there were reasons for the characters being the way they are. I am guessing Missandei was a character that was going to last the five year gap, and still be a teenager. Hence the incredible precocity, and the important job she has at age eleven.

I think I also liked the very different way they dealt woth Qarth and Xaro Xohan Daxos. Who, it turns out, owns nothing but an empty vault that Dany locks him up in. The storyline has the quality of a fable, although it burns short the arc of a very interesting villain. And it means Cersei and Jaime get a painted map of Westeros in the Red Keep, because XXD can't give Dany a carpet of the ancient world in Meereen.

Also, the sons of the Harpy look great, and I can see why, on tv, they had to have a distinctive visual marker, but really, for what they are, that makes no sense. It is like expecting members of Anonymous to wear a Guy Fawkes mask while they are hacking, or for police to keep white capriotes on hand to use in cases of racist violence.  Also, it was a bit confusing that the Brazen Beasts, who had a reason to wear golden masks, did not exist. I suppose getting rid of the free companies, except Daario, and the Brazen Beasts, and the Freedman companies, and the squires and the pit fighters and the vast array of miscellaneous Yunkai and allied slave companies opposing Dany, made for a manageable, coherent cinematic narrative.

[Aebram]

33 minutes ago, Walda said:

In general, as long as they had the real story to give them structure and steer their story to navigable routes, D&D did a great job

I agree with this. I found the first two seasons to be pretty faithful to the books. In seasons 3 and 4, things started to get different; but they mostly seem like reasonable changes, to simplify the story and reduce the number of characters. But in season 5, when they killed Ser Barristan, that was the last straw for me. I did watch the rest of the series, but I did what I call "putting my brain in 3-year-old mode." I enjoyed the acting, scenery, special effects, etc.; but I really don't remember anything about the plot.

The show did have a few clever lines, such as in season 1 when Ned Stark says, "War is easier than daughters." Also, I loved that moment in season 4 when Jaime uses his golden hand to block an attacker's sword. I hope he does that in one of the books.

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

1 hour ago, Walda said:

Plot-wise, there were reasons for the characters being the way they are. I am guessing Missandei was a character that was going to last the five year gap, and still be a teenager. Hence the incredible precocity, and the important job she has at age eleven.

 

Yeah I was shocked when I found out Missandei's actual age. Daenerys's too. Like as bad as D&D were, aging up the two of them was a wise decision in hindsight.

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

Another change I liked was Jorah being a better person in the show. In the books, he was creepy towards Daenaerys.

[SaffronLady]

Should this thread be here or in the show discuss forum? I dunno, @Ran your call.

[Nevets]

17 hours ago, Walda said:

Not just Osha. Talisa Maegyr was a more interesting character than Jane Westerling. Jane has the love potion theory to explain why so slight a character as herself was chosen at such cost to be his queen, but Talisa needs no such excuses. Talisa was also a way of getting a sneak preview of Volantis, long before the show went there. I loved her scene with Martyn Lanister and Tion Frey, too.

Myranda (Ramsey's lover) was another great character - better than Kyra and Palla combined, in my opinion. 

In general, as long as they had the real story to give them structure and steer their story to navigable routes, D&D did a great job of "improving" female characters. 

Brienne, Catelyn, Cersei, Margaery, Missandei, Dany were all the better as characters for it. I think show Lancel with perfect physical health but turning into an unhinged zealot was a great move too.

But of course, these choices have consequences. I love book Myranda, but she becomes imposible with the merging of Harry the Heir and fArya into Ramsey and Sansa.

Plot-wise, there were reasons for the characters being the way they are. I am guessing Missandei was a character that was going to last the five year gap, and still be a teenager. Hence the incredible precocity, and the important job she has at age eleven.

I think I also liked the very different way they dealt woth Qarth and Xaro Xohan Daxos. Who, it turns out, owns nothing but an empty vault that Dany locks him up in. The storyline has the quality of a fable, although it burns short the arc of a very interesting villain. And it means Cersei and Jaime get a painted map of Westeros in the Red Keep, because XXD can't give Dany a carpet of the ancient world in Meereen.

Also, the sons of the Harpy look great, and I can see why, on tv, they had to have a distinctive visual marker, but really, for what they are, that makes no sense. It is like expecting members of Anonymous to wear a Guy Fawkes mask while they are hacking, or for police to keep white capriotes on hand to use in cases of racist violence.  Also, it was a bit confusing that the Brazen Beasts, who had a reason to wear golden masks, did not exist. I suppose getting rid of the free companies, except Daario, and the Brazen Beasts, and the Freedman companies, and the squires and the pit fighters and the vast array of miscellaneous Yunkai and allied slave companies opposing Dany, made for a manageable, coherent cinematic narrative.

Actually, I thought Talisa was one of the worst changes.  It makes Robb's actions in incomprehensible and even dishonorable.  He has no reason to marry her.  Love by itself isn't enough; not at his level.  Plus he's breaking his promise to the Freys.  At least in the book he's preserving her honor at risk to his own; a Stark-ish thing to do.  Their relationship on the show is anachronistic.  Hell, her entire story is anachronistic.

I don't buy the love potion theory either.  Two unchaperoned teenagers, especially if the girl is aggressive, is quite sufficient.  Plus GRRM always has his characters be fully responsible for their own actions.  A love potion negates that.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Nevets

[Dragonbane]

Only good show only scenes is Varys Littlefinger confrontations, with outstanding dialogue. Talisa... there is an idiomatic expression in my native language that say"stendiamo un velo pietoso". It's a horrible charachter, and is a XX century woman in a XIV century (around) ambientation, out of the context for ASOIAF and for real Middle Age.

[csuszka1948]

I don't think seasons 5 and 6 were so bad as people think in this forum - I believe D&D tried to simplify the events of books 4-6 (what GRRM told them about book 6 at least) into 2 seasons, and they were relatively successful. Considering that GRRM didn't release Winds, adapting a bunch of new characters to a show which already huge cast without knowing the payoff is just ridiculous. Expecting them to give a satisfying ending to the 'Long Night' storyline - despite I haven't seen anyone in fandom came up with one and GRRM barely released any material on it - is also unfair.

 

Their main problem was that after the apparent success of season 6, they grew convinced that they are actually good writers and can do good 'plot twists' on their own, and disregarded that GRRM's plot twists worked because they were sufficiently set up on character level and foreshadowed, they just went against the common fantasy tropes and narrative expectations of the readers.

For example, 'Dragonriding warlord witch-queen with barbarian hordes invading Westeros turns out to be evil' or 'man in wheelchair is emotionless and calculating' (both of which were employed by D&D) are common tropes, not a trope subversions.

D&D barely took any feedback from others and most of their 'plot twists' didn't work because they lacked setup.

Edited August 7, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

@WaldaI have to disagree about Qarth, which I found to be cheesy generic fantasy, which actually showed much that would go wrong with later seasons.  We got pointless conflict in place of diplomacy (Dany and the Spice King);  plot holes (her Dothraki are killed in one episode, revive in the next, Xaro has no guards despite being king) ;  an abrupt, unexplained change in character (Doreah).  

In general, I think the main characters were made (certainly by the end) flat caricatures of their book characters, but some secondary characters came over better, simply by virtue of being given points of view, and more of a story, or being acted by good character actors.

 

[csuszka1948]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think the main characters were made (certainly by the end) flat caricatures of their book characters, but some secondary characters came over better, simply by being given points of view, and more of a story, or being acted by good character actors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's because of two reasons.

1) According to their own admission - they tried to adapt scenes, not themes and the show was about power:

Did you really sit down and try to boil the elements of the books down? Did you really try to understand it’s major elements.

D&D: No. We didn’t. The scope was too big. It was about the scenes we were trying to depict and the show was about power.

The show was about the 'game of thrones', about power, and 'the man who doesn't want power but is elected by others to lead (showJon) killing the woman who wants power and admiration (showDany)" was supposed to be their statement about power and their Walter White moment.

2) They also let the actors 'redefine' the roles:

Dan is saying that he let the actors redefined the roles, esp Maisie and they began writing for the actors, it is like the actor moved into the “house” and redecorated. He said he learned about the characters from the actors.

In practice, that meant that they choose the behaviour/face that (in their opinion) has fit the given actor the best (or was the 'coolest') and tried to have him/her repeat it as many times as possible, making them into caricatures.

That's how Dany turned into the ice-cold faced 'tyrant', Tyrion became Barney Stinson reborn, "I am an iconic TV character Tyrion Lannister, the audience will buy everything I say and it's always funny", Arya became not like other girls, Jon Snow became Ned Stark 2.0 which as far as they're concerned means a dumb fuck who always does the right thing and pays the hard price for it, and Bran has a better story by virtue of having none at all. They explicitly explain it for Dany, it was her reaction to Viserys' death that sealed the deal for her:

DAN WEISS (showrunner): We didn’t know the details until after the third season, but Dany’s trajectory was implicit in the first season. You’re so rooting for her because she’s in this horrible position. But there are a million different ways Emilia could have played watching her brother die, and she played it with a stone-cold-killer-like lack of affect. She has dark currents running through her.

In my opinion (but I might be wrong), D&D - and probably even much of the audiance - doesn't understand why are GRRM's plot twists working and why are they 'subversive'.

For example, most of the fans have found the idea that Aegon will turn out to be the perfect prince loved by the masses and Dany the foreign invader with dragons and barbarians who 'loses it' when she doesn't get the love she feels she deserves as subversive, when it's literally playing the 'mad queen', 'hidden prince returns to take his Throne' and the 'evil barbarian' tropes straight.

The death of Ned and Robb worked because in traditional fantasy narratives they are the heroes who win, but the twist of GRRM wasn't that he made them 'evil', but that they have lost. The death of Oberyn worked because the audiance expected that the 'righteous underdog wins' plays out straight or in the worst case he will simply lose, not that he could win but his desire to bring righteousness will bring his end.

Edited August 7, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, that's because of two reasons.

1) According to their own admission - they tried to adapt scenes, not themes and the show was about power:

Did you really sit down and try to boil the elements of the books down? Did you really try to understand it’s major elements.

D&D: No. We didn’t. The scope was too big. It was about the scenes we were trying to depict and the show was about power.

The show was about the 'game of thrones', about power, and 'the man who doesn't want power but is elected by others to lead (showJon) killing the woman who wants power and admiration (showDany)" was supposed to be their statement about power and their Walter White moment.

2) They also let the actors 'redefine' the roles:

Dan is saying that he let the actors redefined the roles, esp Maisie and they began writing for the actors, it is like the actor moved into the “house” and redecorated. He said he learned about the characters from the actors.

In practice, that meant that they choose the behaviour/face that (in their opinion) has fit the given actor the best (or was the 'coolest') and tried to have him/her repeat it as many times as possible, making them into caricatures.

That's how Dany turned into the ice-cold faced 'tyrant', Tyrion became Barney Stinson reborn, "I am an iconic TV character Tyrion Lannister, the audience will buy everything I say and it's always funny", Arya became not like other girls, Jon Snow became Ned Stark 2.0 which as far as they're concerned means a dumb fuck who always does the right thing and pays the hard price for it, and Bran has a better story by virtue of having none at all. They explicitly explain it for Dany, it was her reaction to Viserys' death that sealed the deal for her:

DAN WEISS (showrunner): We didn’t know the details until after the third season, but Dany’s trajectory was implicit in the first season. You’re so rooting for her because she’s in this horrible position. But there are a million different ways Emilia could have played watching her brother die, and she played it with a stone-cold-killer-like lack of affect. She has dark currents running through her.

In my opinion (but I might be wrong), D&D - and probably even much of the audiance - doesn't understand why are GRRM's plot twists working and why are they 'subversive'.

For example, most of the fans have found the idea that Aegon will turn out to be the perfect prince loved by the masses and Dany the foreign invader with dragons and barbarians who 'loses it' when she doesn't get the love she feels she deserves as subversive, when it's literally playing the 'mad queen', 'hidden prince returns to take his Throne' and the 'evil barbarian' tropes straight.

The death of Ned and Robb worked because in traditional fantasy narratives they are the heroes who win, but the twist of GRRM wasn't that he made them 'evil', but that they have lost. The death of Oberyn worked because the audiance expected that the 'righteous underdog wins' plays out straight or in the worst case he will simply lose, not that he could win but his desire to bring righteousness will bring his end.

Spot on.  There’s nothing trope-subversive about “Beautiful woman with magical beings is evil.”  It’s a trope as old as literature.

WRT Viserys, that shows a basic lack of knowledge of psychology.  On top of their basic lack of knowledge of history, politics, logistics, religion, military science, writing, literature, drama etc.

They may have made the show about Power, but they know nothing about it.

Edited August 8, 2023 by SeanF

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

10 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

I don't think seasons 5 and 6 were so bad as people think in this forum - I believe D&D tried to simplify the events of books 4-6 (what GRRM told them about book 6 at least) into 2 seasons, and they were relatively successful. Considering that GRRM didn't release Winds, adapting a bunch of new characters to a show which already huge cast without knowing the payoff is just ridiculous. Expecting them to give a satisfying ending to the 'Long Night' storyline - despite I haven't seen anyone in fandom came up with one and GRRM barely released any material on it - is also unfair.

 

Their main problem was that after the apparent success of season 6, they grew convinced that they are actually good writers and can do good 'plot twists' on their own, and disregarded that GRRM's plot twists worked because they were sufficiently set up on character level and foreshadowed, they just went against the common fantasy tropes and narrative expectations of the readers.

For example, 'Dragonriding warlord witch-queen with barbarian hordes invading Westeros turns out to be evil' or 'man in wheelchair is emotionless and calculating' (both of which were employed by D&D) are common tropes, not a trope subversions.

D&D barely took any feedback from others and most of their 'plot twists' didn't work because they lacked setup.

Disagree about seasons 5 and 6. They both felt like they were dragging on too much since they were cutting content off. Dorne's storyline especially got shafted. Plus, D&D could've covered fAegon, Tyrion's descent into villany, Jaime's internal struggles, and Euron's plot to be an eldritch god-king. But no they have to become mundane and ruin the show with it.

The only good things I'll say about D&D is that they can add new scenes or improve on them if they're working on what's already in the books. Tyrion's trial speech is a good example.

[Aebram]

12 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Should this thread be here or in the show discuss forum? I dunno, @Ran your call.

I was wondering about this myself. It occurs to me that, because this discussion is specifically for comparing the show to the books, it's not completely off-topic.

Also, the show has been over for, what, 3 years now? It's not as popular a subject for conversation as it was when it was running. Maybe there isn't so much need to have a hard prohibition on mentioning the show here.

[csuszka1948]

57 minutes ago, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

Disagree about seasons 5 and 6. They both felt like they were dragging on too much since they were cutting content off. Dorne's storyline especially got shafted. Plus, D&D could've covered fAegon, Tyrion's descent into villany, Jaime's internal struggles, and Euron's plot to be an eldritch god-king. But no they have to become mundane and ruin the show with it.

 

 

 

Why would they include all these if these new plotlines all lack payoff and GRRM has been unable to finish it for 12 years? That's the huge problem they have faced, and expecting them to solve it when even the original author cannot do it is very unfair. The story already had a very huge cast, expanding it further when the new characters barely did anything in FeastDance is just not realistic.

BTW Jaime's internal struggles cannot be covered in screen because they are, you know, internal.  

Edited August 7, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

7 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Why would they include all these if these new plotlines all lack payoff and GRRM has been unable to finish it for 12 years? That's the huge problem they have faced, and expecting them to solve it when even the original author cannot do it is very unfair. The story already had a very huge cast, expanding it further when the new characters barely did anything in FeastDance is just not realistic.

BTW Jaime's internal struggles cannot be covered in screen because they are, you know, internal.  

They could've at least asked GRRM the general endings of said plotlines. Or at least come up with something adequate. D&D really had no idea what made this story great and were obsessed with doing stupid mental gymnastics. Besides, it would've provided good content for viewers instead of coming up with pointless stuff (gosh I hate how Dorne was handled!).

Also, they could've done something similar to the Tywin/Arya scenes where Jaime talks to Ilyn in private about his private thoughts. Then, the internal struggles can be shown on screen. 

[SeanF]

Although Martin’s portrayal of the Dothraki is pretty superficial (they’re really the Tharks of Barsoom, and bear little relation to Mongols, Alans, or Plains Indians), I take an important point of the books to be this:

The nobles of Westeros are (in the main) not much different, despite their veneer of civilisation.  What was done, at Mirri’s village was done by Hoster Tully at Lord Godbrook’s, and by all the parties to The War of the Five Kings at scores of villages, throughout the Seven Kingdoms.  The only difference being that in most cases, enslavement was replaced by massacre.

That was a sociological point that either D & D did not understand, or they did not wish to understand.