[Book spoiler] Aren't you bothered?

[Ashas Globetrotter]

Why is Cersei sane? These changes for the show are just stupid.

I don`t understanding why so many are fussing about Cersei. First of all Cersei is not mad in the book either, at least not at this point; she is just an extremely vindictive, ambitious, cunning (and sometimes not cunning enough) bitch. And loving when it comes to her children. I don`t think this is changed in the season 2, they just haven`t got the time for including the cuntiest scenes. They did however show a glimpse with her comment to Tyrion last episode, about taking away the ones he love. I don`t feel a change in her character in the show, something it think will be increasingly showcased in the time to come

[Logensfinger]

I too am starting to get rather cheesed off in regards to the libertys taken with plot lines, whilst alot can be put down to the fact that it is a television show and much of the content in the book would not translate to the screen, some of the major diversions seem strange to me. It is the little things that get me the most tho, the peach thing from a few episodes is a prime example, i mean a peach is inexpensive and quite easy to come in this day and age dispite the economic turmoil and its little easter eggs like this that IMO fans of the book would like to see. The loss of the Reed i can live with, it bothers me that Rickon is now on the journey with Bran, i am sick too death of dany (and yes dany i know there your words, but she's laying on the blood and fire thing to thick for my taste and is possibly as annoyin as the book dany) and the stolen dragons was yet another major diversion. I think the theon story is good tho dispite the changes.

Must say i was dissapointed there was no Bronn (I think the guy playing him is fantastic) but having more of the hound made up for his loss, i also didnt really mind the littlefinger tywin sceen but that was just because tywin as alway was played great, cannot wait to see ramsey and hope they show him in all his horrific glory.

This season on the whole has been a little dissapointing for me, the reason the first season was so good was because it was close to the first book, not perfect page for page stuff but very well done and i feel the show is starting to go to far astray.

[7V3N]

How does her crying now preclude future actions? Do you really think audiences or writers are going to come up against the future events in Dorne and say "Hey now, no way does she have any bravery, we saw that little girl cry... once... years ago... when she was sent away from the only life and people she'd ever known... to a place she's only read about..."? Expressing sadness and bravery are not mutually exclusive, even for Lannisters, and particularly for children.

Also, even in later books, Myrcella is barely a character. The series would have suffered more from lack of Dolorous Edd than lack of Myrcella.

Even in later books? Have you read?! There is some huge tension in Dorne because Myrcella's face was cut up and she is missing an ear! Dolorous Edd is barely worth more than a sarcastic remark and a sigh.

But no, I am not saying it will ruin her future nor preclude events. But it is a change to her character, and creates inconsistencies that were consistent in the books. Before this (in the show), we knew nothing about who she was other than the princess with a sweet smile. This scene (in the book) told us she was brave and dutiful, which becomes even more obvious with later Arianne's scheming and Doran's coverup. And considering how making her cry was a highly unnecessary change which helps the show in no way, I have no clue why you are attempting to defend it.

Also, "years ago"? Try a year, IF THAT.

[Lightning Lord]

1) Myrcella's presence in Dorne was just a way to bring the reader to Dorne. It could easily have been done another way. There had to be something in Dorne, but nothing we've seen means it had to be Myrcella.

2) Years later for us, not the characters. Books 4/5 won't be on screen for years, yet.

It helps the show in that it shows she's a real person, with feelings. People can be brave and dutiful and still be upset. I don't know why you think that's impossible. She wasn't screaming and bawling, she wasn't throwing a tantrum. She looked like a real little girl trying to live up to insane expectations, trying not to show she's upset, but not quite managing it.

It makes sense that you can't understand why I'd defend it - I can't understand why such a trivial detail is of such import.

[7V3N]

1) Myrcella's presence in Dorne was just a way to bring the reader to Dorne. It could easily have been done another way. There had to be something in Dorne, but nothing we've seen means it had to be Myrcella.

2) Years later for us, not the characters. Books 4/5 won't be on screen for years, yet.

It helps the show in that it shows she's a real person, with feelings. People can be brave and dutiful and still be upset. I don't know why you think that's impossible. She wasn't screaming and bawling, she wasn't throwing a tantrum. She looked like a real little girl trying to live up to insane expectations, trying not to show she's upset, but not quite managing it.

It makes sense that you can't understand why I'd defend it - I can't understand why such a trivial detail is of such import.

She could have had a brave face while still looking scared/upset. Even her fighting a few tears and a forcing a smile would have been fine for me because it fits the character. Why don't we make Jaime in ACOK a pussy while we're at it, since his role isn't big in it. No, the character has significance just as Myrcella does even if it is not at this specific moment. Under your logic of "well, we'll have enough time to forget about it" the writers could butcher Ser Barristan's character too, along with countless others who disappear for books at a time. Will Osha come back from Skagos as a gentle lady too?

The change makes no sense and was not necessary by any means. This is just another example of D&D thinking they can do better than GRRM.

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

Myrcella crying stuck out to me as well.

Its just ridiculous. I mean are they stupid? Have they not read the books? Did GRMM not see this scene when it was filmed or review afterwards? So many questions jumped to my mind when I saw crying on that boat.

In the book it CLEARLY states that she put on a brave face and didn't shed tears (at least not a whole lot). She knows its her duty to go to Dorne and she provides comfort to Tommen who WAS crying in the books.

The writers/producers are now taking way too many liberties with the books and its really starting to piss me off.

[Independent George]

People really think Myrcella crying is a big deal? I noticed the change, but since it didn't alter one bit of the story, I just didn't care. She's a little girl being sent away from her family to live with strangers in a foreign land...so she cried. Yes, Martin pointed out that she bravely didn't cry, but how is this change at all significant?

This actually is a pretty big deal. The whole point to Myrcella being brave and comforting Tommen was that of the three Lannister children, she's clearly the one most fit to rule, but never can because she's a girl. It fits with Arianne's sexposition about Cristan Cole and her attempts to crown Myrcella in Dorne, and Cersei's actions and motivations as Queen Regent.

None of this essential - all of these things are subtext which doesn't directly impact the storyline - but it does dramatically impact the themes later on.

[Mr Fixit]

As I said, smart people will always fanwank an explanation for why a deviation is the worst thing ever. No point in discussing it any further.

Yeah, Myrcella is a pivotal character in the saga, the main protagonist of A Song of Ice and Fire, and Martin's alter ego. Crying is inexcusable. It shows writers have no respect for the source material and will do anything to hollywoodise the TV show. Those salty tears being the easiest way to accomplish that. Peach is another, of course. Such a slap in the face of all that Martin strove to achieve. And for what? Just because focus group testing showed the TV audiences hate peaches doesn't mean D&D had to stoop so low and bastardise the show to such an extent.

What's next, I wonder? If they insist on Hound having the scar on the same side of the face in every single scene, I'm done! Martin himself explicitly wrote that the scar changes sides. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

[Ran]

They don't use focus groups. But sometimes writers/producers of TV shows are sloppy or wrong about something (sometimes writers of books are sloppy and wrong, too; no one's perfect). If they seem to randomly screw around with minor details -- and things that are, relative to those characters, iconic moments for them -- then it's worrisome for people who wonder if they're going to get sloppy or similarly wrong about bigger things. And, I mean, you can't pretend that the peach and Myrcella's lack of tears aren't things that GRRM made a very specific point of inserting. Myrcella's lack of tears is the very thing that opens that book. It highlights her, who otherwise has very little voice in the series up to that point. It's a shame they either forgot about it or went for the Hollywood "oh, lets project emotion by having her sobbing". Hell, if they just gave her a quiver of her lips and a surreptitious wiping away of a single tear, it'd both project emotion and be true to that moment in the novel.

But no. They made a mistake, and you're bending over backwards to complain that people are calling them on it. I don't understand why you're so hysterical about the fact that people don't share your opinion and dare to express it, but so is life.

[Hyper]

All hail the mighty infallible source material. How dare they tweak a minor characters expression to try to make the scene make more sense? Outrageous.

The scene is not about Myrcella. It is about Tyrion & Cersei - a backdrop to their conversation. To emphasize how Cersei feels. Showing Myrcella as the books described would simply undercut the scene. In the book POVs we can get a fuller picture how Myrcella feels - but here we cannot - not without significant screen time. All in all this *IS* a minor detail.

[aeu]

But no. They made a mistake, and you're bending over backwards to complain that people are calling them on it. I don't understand why you're so hysterical about the fact that people don't share your opinion and dare to express it, but so is life.

You have a point, but don't you think that goes both ways, or rather it mostly goes the other way? Lots of hysteria about changes that can reasonably be considered minor. Are they stupid or have they not read the books? Such an excellent question, let's have a poll on that.

[teemo]

If they seem to randomly screw around with minor details -- and things that are, relative to those characters, iconic moments for them -- then it's worrisome for people who wonder if they're going to get sloppy or similarly wrong about bigger things.

This. Exactly how I feel.

[Dragon greyscale]

Just thinking about the myrcella thing... First off, it wasn't a big deal to me personally as I didn't even notice it.

Still, I'm trying to see the rationale of the complaints. So let me get this straight. In the books she was explicitly not crying and to some readers that signified a lot about her resilience. This is important because it foreshadows her happy-go-lucky attitude in affc.

The question I have for those readers is this: Do you think that her tv character is now inalterable for the remainder of the show? Are the tears really that defining for nonreading viewers? Is she now forever condemned to the poor little victim role? I don't believe that. I think she can cry now and still become resilient when the show reaches Dorne. People can change and 'man up' (woman up I guess...)

It's called character development. Now you may say that it's unneccesary development because it wasn't in the books. That's fine, but it's also a rigid purist stance.

[Envie]

I'm with the camp that felt this wasn't a huge deal having Myrcella crying. Honestly, watch it again. Yes, she's visibly crying, but she's not sobbing uncontrollably or reaching for her Mother or being a child (which she still is one). She's sitting there like a very poised young lady trying to fight back tears that are coming anyways and she's holding her back straight, her head up high...only pain in her eyes as she's going further away from the only life she's ever had. This is a terrifying moment for a young girl and I feel the actress did a good job of showing it without spoiling any sort of characterization for Myrcella.

It's a very minor detail in light of all the major ones they've changed in the series. Really.

[Thunderfist]

The part about Myrcella crying was just one of many complaints that people have had about the episode, but since it´s the complaint that seems the smallest and most petty, all the posters who dislike us "rigid purists", "book-fanatics" and (my personal favourite) "Novel-NAZIS", will cling to this to make their case.

[Dragon greyscale]

The part about Myrcella crying was just one of many complaints that people have had about the episode, but since it´s the complaint that seems the smallest and most petty, all the posters who dislike us "rigid purists", "book-fanatics" and (my personal favourite) "Novel-NAZIS", will cling to this to make their case.

I don't think that's fair. Both big and small changes can be discussed here. That's what the forum is for. I'm just trying to follow the rationale on a case by case basis. Myrcella is, as you said yourself, just one of the examples we can discuss. I still don't know how you feel about my earlier question.

But let's also cover an ostensibly bigger change: the dragon theft. I thought it was smart because it doesn't change the direction of Dany's journey but it keeps her present situation interesting. That's what I'd call an improvement.

Another one: Jon&ygritte. This one I did not really care for because it seemed contrived (leaving them alone and then chasing her for who knows what reason). I understand why they did it though. They're trying to establish this romance a little more than the books (In which it's also a bit out of the blue btw) Still, as long as Jon has to infiltrate and kill halfhand by the end of the season, I'm okay with his storyline.

Point is, the groundwork of asoiaf is solid (not great tbh) and D&D can play with it as long as they keep hittting important plot points. That's my view at least.

[Thunderfist]

I don't think that's fair. Both big and small changes can be discussed here. That's what the forum is for. I'm just trying to follow the rationale on a case by case basis. Myrcella is, as you said yourself, just one of the examples we can discuss. I still don't know how you feel about my earlier question.

But let's also cover an ostensibly bigger change: the dragon theft. I thought it was smart because it doesn't change the direction of Dany's journey but it keeps her present situation interesting. That's what I'd call an improvement.

Another one: Jon&ygritte. This one I did not really care for because it seemed contrived (leaving them alone and then chasing her for who knows what reason). I understand why they did it though. They're trying to establish this romance a little more than the books (In which it's also a bit out of the blue btw) Still, as long as Jon has to infiltrate and kill halfhand by the end of the season, I'm okay with his storyline.

Point is, the groundwork of asoiaf is solid (not great tbh) and D&D can play with it as long as they keep hittting important plot points. That's my view at least.

About the crying: It signified that Myrcella was no longer a child but that she had embraced her role as a princess and had gained an understanding about her duties. This may prove to be important in later books, it depends a bit on how the Dorne plot plays out. And even though this is a minor issue, the question can be reversed, why change it at all?

Regarding the dragon theft, I can only answer for myself but I would say that the jury is still out. I am sceptical right now but still open to the fact that the show might prove me wrong. Again, it depends on how it plays out.

And personally I am fine with changes that make sense. Some of my favourite scenes from season 1 weren´t included in the books, most notably Varys/Littlefinger, Tywin/Jaime and Robert/Cersei. I thougth that these scenes did a great job of showing these characters in a credible way.

However, when the changes doesn´t make any sense at all, I object. For me one example of this is the scene with Robb and Talisa. It´s blatantly obvious that Robb is falling in love with this girl, he makes no effort to conceal this whatsoever. He engages in flirtatious conversation with her in broad daylight in the middle of his camp. Everyone who happens to take a look at them will see that Robb is in love with her, and this includes all of his bannermen, most notably the Freys. The Freys are possibly his strongest allies at this point, and Robb has promised to marry Roslin Frey. So I´m still waiting for someone to explain to me how it makes sense that Robb Stark is showing everyone that he is falling in love with this highborn lady when much of his success in the war is dependant on the alliance of the Freys and his marriage to Roslin. And even if the Freys might not expect Robb to marry Talisa, it´s still a massive insult to them, commited in broad daylight in front of everyone.

[David Selig]

The Freys don't give a damn, as long as Robb doesn't marry anyone else, he can have lovers and they wouldn't care. After all Lord Frey is someone who has plenty of bastards and flaunts them in front of his wives, and in general male nobles cheating on their wives and betrothed is no big deal in Westeros, especially when they are away on war. And nobody would expect Robb to marry someone who's supposedly not even a noble when he's already engaged as a part of important political deal, it's just completely against the societal norms in Westeros.

[turdle]

for me personally, some of the most irritating changes have been the small ones. for example, changing the three eyed crow into a three eyed raven. honestly, the irritation is less about what was changed but that something was changed for virtually no reason. and while i did not remember that in the book that marcella didn't cry, i do find it irritating that they changed it. the bigger changes tend to make more sense to me, i get why they would combine scenarios here or there and cut out some characters and so on. but when the difference amounts to a character saying "crow" instead of "raven," or having a little girl not cry instead of cry, it just makes me feel like D&D feel like changing things just because they can.

[Lightning Lord]

It highlights her, who otherwise has very little voice in the series up to that point. It's a shame they either forgot about it or went for the Hollywood "oh, lets project emotion by having her sobbing". Hell, if they just gave her a quiver of her lips and a surreptitious wiping away of a single tear, it'd both project emotion and be true to that moment in the novel.

That word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've seen girls of that age (and boys...and adults) sobbing. Myrcella on screen was, really, truly, NOT SOBBING. Sobbing is more vocal, more violent, less controlled. That's not just my personal connotation of it, that's what you find if you look it up in a dictionary. There wasn't a raw deluge of emotion. Myrcella was crying and sniffling. She looked like a girl putting a brave face on a very upsetting situation. She looked like she wanted to sob and knew it wasn't allowed for a princess. But, despite her bravery and desire to act the part instead of the person, the little princess wasn't quite able to keep back all of it. How does that change anything about her character?

Also, in the novel, we see Myrcella from Tyrion's perspective. When we get Tyrion's perspective on-screen, Myrcella isn't even visible, just the boat she's on. The didn't reproduce the whole scene for us.