[Book spoiler] Aren't you bothered?

[protar]

While I try to see the show and the books as two seperate entities, I do get annoyed when things are changed for virtually no good reason that I can see. I think that's important; to see the difference between changes that were necessary, and changes that really weren't and just stink of D+D being arrogant and think they can top GRRM.

Take Jaqen killing the Tickler and Ser Amory. Those are fairly big changes however they made sense. The crux of the matter is that Arya has Jaqen kill two mean Lannister soldiers. Seeing as we already have that with the Tickler and Amory, it would be pointless to introduce two more only to kill them off so quickly.

Then we have LF giving Cat the idea of freeing Jaime. No. Reason. For. This. Change. Whatsoever. Quite literally the only reason D+D could have for doing this is that they believe Cat's motivations in the book aren't good enough. So yes, they think they're better than Martin. And hell, why was LF in Renly's camp at that point anyway? I liked seeing the negotiations between LF and Margaery, but couldn't that have happened when it actually happened in the books. It would have given the Tyrells more screen time to build them up, it would have let D+D indulge in their LF fetish and it would've actually been true to the books.

I'm not a purists, I understand that changes have to be made. It's just when these changes are completely pointless that it irks me.

[boojam]

Adaptation is hard. Seriously, amazingly, jaw-droppingly, soul-crushingly hard. Harder than most non-writers could possibly imagine. What seems to some like it should just be a simple 1:1 translation - take the words from the page, kill the unnecessary ones, and translate the rest to screenplay format - takes on a level of complexity that is difficult to imagine when you put it through the filter of what constitutes a good visual story.

There is one thing.

Suppose George had never written ASoIaF? This show was a pure teleplay creation?

Good writing demands one obey the story's on internal logic.

(Well does not matter if its a prose fiction novel or a film screenplay.)

Now that is a hard thing to do , what is a good screenwriter for but to solve problems , make the plot flow with drama and logical drama?

This show has been very good at that , mostly because of George's story and even some of his dialog, but some here and there sloppy teleplay writing will create some rough spots.

[Mr Fixit]

If one looks at A Game of Thrones solely as a TV show, it's outstanding; rich and layered, with some lovely performances, an unusual and complex plot, some beautiful locations, etc.

If one looks at A Game of Thrones as an adaption of GRRM's series, it is high drama in Season 1, and starting to unravel but still enjoyable on the whole in Season 2.

I myself agree that the show, although very good, isn't perhaps on the same level as Season 1. It does have a certain jittery feeling to it, with scenes bouncing around at a fast clip.

But, I believe at least part of the reason lies with the books themselves. Clash as a book is much more sprawled and unfocused compared to A Game of Thrones, and given the time limitations, there are bound to be some structural difficulties in making the show.

Just take the location of the main characters as an example: in AGoT all, except for Dany start in Winterfell. After they all go their merry way, we still have 3 main locations (and storylines) where practically all the characters are located: the Wall, Essos, King's Landing (Ned, Arya, Sansa, LF, Varys, King and Queen...). Tyrion is partly with Jon, then with Cat. Bran is in Winterfell, but his story isn't all that important just yet.

Compare that to ACoK: Wall, Essos, King's Landing, Robb's campaign in the west, Stannis and Renly, Theon on Pyke and Winterfell, Bran off doing his own thing with the Reeds, Arya in the Riverlands... There are, what, 7-8 concurrent storylines being played put, and what's more, none of these are all that connected for the time being (except Stannis/KL).

Frankly, I don't see how D&D could make it even better (pacingwise at least) than the show already is without a significant increase in the number of episodes.

[protar]

I myself agree that the show, although very good, isn't perhaps on the same level as Season 1. It does have a certain jittery feeling to it, with scenes bouncing around at a fast clip.

But, I believe at least part of the reason lies with the books themselves. Clash as a book is much more sprawled and unfocused compared to A Game of Thrones, and given the time limitations, there are bound to be some structural difficulties in making the show.

Just take the location of the main characters as an example: in AGoT all, except for Dany start in Winterfell. After they all go their merry way, we still have 3 main locations (and storylines) where practically all the characters are located: the Wall, Essos, King's Landing (Ned, Arya, Sansa, LF, Varys, King and Queen...). Tyrion is partly with Jon, then with Cat. Bran is in Winterfell, but his story isn't all that important just yet.

Compare that to ACoK: Wall, Essos, King's Landing, Robb's campaign in the west, Stannis and Renly, Theon on Pyke and Winterfell, Bran off doing his own thing with the Reeds, Arya in the Riverlands... There are, what, 7-8 concurrent storylines being played put, and what's more, none of these are all that connected for the time being (except Stannis/KL).

Frankly, I don't see how D&D could make it even better (pacingwise at least) than the show already is without a significant increase in the number of episodes.

Perhaps by not putting in scenes that aren't in the books that take up like half of the screen time.

[House Snow]

While I try to see the show and the books as two seperate entities, I do get annoyed when things are changed for virtually no good reason that I can see. I think that's important; to see the difference between changes that were necessary, and changes that really weren't and just stink of D+D being arrogant and think they can top GRRM.

Then we have LF giving Cat the idea of freeing Jaime. No. Reason. For. This. Change. Whatsoever. Quite literally the only reason D+D could have for doing this is that they believe Cat's motivations in the book aren't good enough. So yes, they think they're better than Martin. And hell, why was LF in Renly's camp at that point anyway? I liked seeing the negotiations between LF and Margaery, but couldn't that have happened when it actually happened in the books. It would have given the Tyrells more screen time to build them up, it would have let D+D indulge in their LF fetish and it would've actually been true to the books.

I'm not a purists, I understand that changes have to be made. It's just when these changes are completely pointless that it irks me.

But Cats reason were terrible. Quite a few people think that segment is the least believable part of the entire series. I'm ecsctatic that they are trying to make it seem more rational. There is a difference b/t irrational and what GGRM did which was not believable. under the circumstances. Having LF egg her on provides for the upcoming scene to be be irrational but believable. The truth is not everything George wrote was great. Its not about ego. Its about internal logic.

[Jamie Lannister]

If it makes you feel any better (major episode 7 spoilers),

according to the episode seven spoilers leaking around, Littlefinger's urging isn't the only reason Cat frees Jaime. He apparently does a few rather brutal things (Karstark demands his head after them), and she fears that he won't survive the night unless she gets him out of there.

[David Selig]

But Cats reason were terrible. Quite a few people think that segment is the least believable part of the entire series. I'm ecsctatic that they are trying to make it seem more rational. There is a difference b/t irrational and what GGRM did which was not believable. under the circumstances. Having LF egg her on provides for the upcoming scene to be be irrational but believable. The truth is not everything George wrote was great. Its not about ego. Its about internal logic.

I don't see much of a difference in the reasoning at all. In the books Cleon Frey reported to Cat that Tyrion swore he'd exchange Jamie for Arya and Sansa. In the show, LF was the one who reported such an offer to Cat. Given that in the show she's aware that LF betrayed Ned, it's actually less believable for her to trust this offer unless they've changed something significantly in the coming episodes.

[protar]

If it makes you feel any better (major episode 7 spoilers),

according to the episode seven spoilers leaking around, Littlefinger's urging isn't the only reason Cat frees Jaime. He apparently does a few rather brutal things (Karstark demands his head after them), and she fears that he won't survive the night unless she gets him out of there.

That doesn't make me feel better. Couldn't we just have Cat acting rash out of grief? I thought they were perfectly decent motivations in the books, and they'd be perfectly decent motivations in the show.

[dtones520]

That doesn't make me feel better. Couldn't we just have Cat acting rash out of grief? I thought they were perfectly decent motivations in the books, and they'd be perfectly decent motivations in the show.

Jaime is getting freed by Cat, that is the major plot point. Which is going to happen. Whatever Cats motivations are don't really matter IMO.

[protar]

Jaime is getting freed by Cat, that is the major plot point. Which is going to happen. Whatever Cats motivations are don't really matter IMO.

Do Cat's motivations matter for the story to pan out in a certain way? Not really. But do they change her character? Yes, yes they do. And that irks me: The fact that characters are having their personalities changed, even though it doesn't change the actual events. It's not the size of the changes that bother me, it's how neccessary they are. So a small change which was made for no reason would tend to annoy me more than a larger change made for a good reason.

[Bastard of Boston]

I think that's important; to see the difference between changes that were necessary, and changes that really weren't and just stink of D+D being arrogant and think they can top GRRM.

But, why attribute such a nasty accusation? That D&D somehow consider themselves "better" than GRRM whenever a deviation is created on the show? I think the problem here is assuming that one can have the authority to decide which changes are necessary and which changes are not -- which story beats are vital and which aren't as necessary to the plot. Every fan would have a different opinion on that -- some believe the peach is an incredibly important component to Renly's character, while some do not.

Was the peach omission something that hindered the story? Or, would the peach have just been a fun Easter egg for people who read the books? So, with that said, is a missing Easter egg indicative of bad adaptation? (For the record, I would've loved the peach to make an appearance)

As long as we don't know the rationale behind a decision, we can't hope to guess it. If D&D do decide to shed light on certain choices they made, then we can pick their reasoning apart and decide whether it was necessary. To simply say that D&D made the change because they're trying to write a "better" story than GRRM isn't fair. For all we know, they're agonizing over the changes they've had to make as well.

Writing anything can be a traumatic experience when you get to the editing process. I remember studying this issue during a Creative Writing course. The text we were using compared editing/revision to mass murder, and how -- as a writer -- one must be willing to commit mass murder in order to be successful. I can only imagine how much more traumatic it is when you have to take a great work such as ASoIaF and edit it into a 10 episode season.

[Fantôme]

But Cats reason were terrible. Quite a few people think that segment is the least believable part of the entire series. I'm ecsctatic that they are trying to make it seem more rational. There is a difference b/t irrational and what GGRM did which was not believable. under the circumstances. Having LF egg her on provides for the upcoming scene to be be irrational but believable. The truth is not everything George wrote was great. Its not about ego. Its about internal logic.

I don't see how Catelyn acting crazy ,stupidly, irrationally after losing her youngest sons and knowing her daughters were in the hands of the enemy and could suffer the same fate any time is unbelievable. And I agree with David Selig that adding Littlefinger to her reasons doesn't add any rationality to her reasoning.

[Mad Queen]

Do Cat's motivations matter for the story to pan out in a certain way? Not really. But do they change her character? Yes, yes they do. And that irks me: The fact that characters are having their personalities changed, even though it doesn't change the actual events.

But what happened didn't change her personality or motivations, if she still does if out of grief after she learns Theon killed Bran and Rickon. Only this time Littlefinger assured her that Tyrion would do the exchange, and in the books it was Cleos Frey instead.

[protar]

But, why attribute such a nasty accusation? That D&D somehow consider themselves "better" than GRRM whenever a deviation is created on the show? I think the problem here is assuming that one can have the authority to decide which changes are necessary and which changes are not -- which story beats are vital and which aren't as necessary to the plot. Every fan would have a different opinion on that -- some believe the peach is an incredibly important component to Renly's character, while some do not.

Was the peach omission something that hindered the story? Or, would the peach have just been a fun Easter egg for people who read the books? So, with that said, is a missing Easter egg indicative of bad adaptation? (For the record, I would've loved the peach to make an appearance)

As long as we don't know the rationale behind a decision, we can't hope to guess it. If D&D do decide to shed light on certain choices they made, then we can pick their reasoning apart and decide whether it was necessary. To simply say that D&D made the change because they're trying to write a "better" story than GRRM isn't fair. For all we know, they're agonizing over the changes they've had to make as well.

Writing anything can be a traumatic experience when you get to the editing process. I remember studying this issue during a Creative Writing course. The text we were using compared editing/revision to mass murder, and how -- as a writer -- one must be willing to commit mass murder in order to be successful. I can only imagine how much more traumatic it is when you have to take a great work such as ASoIaF and edit it into a 10 episode season.

I don't mean to be disdainful towards D+D, I try to rationalise why they make certain changes and I understand that changes must be made. But sometimes there is just no good reason for some changes. Take the peach example. It doesn't detriment the adaptation that it wasn't there, but there was no reason for it's absence. The ham line that replaced it was funny, but the peach moment could've been made funny as well, but it would still of had a potential hidden meaning that the ham line didn't. Are they going to have Stannis saying: "I shall go to my grave thinking of Renly's ham." ?

Or LF popping up everywhere. I can see why they did it. LF is hardly in COK, but that wouldn't work in the show due to actor contracts and the audience reaction to having such a major character dissapear for most of a season. So I can see why they wanted to give LF more screentime. But why have him pop up in scenes were he didn't in the books, or do things he didn't in the books? They could've just kept him at KL for a couple for episodes and then sent him to treat with the Tyrells when he did in the books. What was wrong with that?

But what happened didn't change her personality or motivations, if she still does if out of grief after she learns Theon killed Bran and Rickon. Only this time Littlefinger assured her that Tyrion would do the exchange, and in the books it was Cleos Frey instead.

Well that isn't really how I saw it when I was watching the show, but I guess I was just annoyed at the fact that LF was there in the first place :P. But if that is the case then sure it's not so bad, but it's still an unnecessary deviation. Why couldn't they just have Alton say it in the show? LF shouldn't have been there.

[Thunderfist]

But what happened didn't change her personality or motivations, if she still does if out of grief after she learns Theon killed Bran and Rickon. Only this time Littlefinger assured her that Tyrion would do the exchange, and in the books it was Cleos Frey instead.

Although in the show, Cat knows that LF betrayed Ned. So when LF says "Hey, free Jaime and the girls will be home safe for sure", she has even less reason to trust him

[7V3N]

But Cats reason were terrible. Quite a few people think that segment is the least believable part of the entire series. I'm ecsctatic that they are trying to make it seem more rational. There is a difference b/t irrational and what GGRM did which was not believable. under the circumstances. Having LF egg her on provides for the upcoming scene to be be irrational but believable. The truth is not everything George wrote was great. Its not about ego. Its about internal logic.

Your sister's husband: murdered by bad guys; Your husband: murdered by bad guys; Your two youngest sons: murdered by bad guys; Your home where you used to feel safe: burned down by bad guys; Your two daughters: kept hostage by the same people who killed your husband.

You don't see why she would take her only opportunity to see her daughters again. She had not seen them since they left Winterfell and all of this had happened. If Robb won as King in the North, would the Lannisters really let the Stark girls live? No. Jaime was the only way. It was an unfair trade, but Cat was always an emotional, family-oriented person. It makes perfect sense for her character and is completely understandable. Do people not agree to pay ridiculously large ransoms when their child is kidnapped? It is almost the same exact thing.

[Mr Fixit]

Perhaps by not putting in scenes that aren't in the books that take up like half of the screen time.

And then someone says there's noone demanding 100% faithful adaptation. Yeah, we don't demand that, we just don't want scenes that aren't in the books.

[7V3N]

And then someone says there's noone demanding 100% faithful adaptation. Yeah, we don't demand that, we just don't want scenes that aren't in the books.

Exactly. I was fine last season when they just cut things that were not necessary and condensed other things. But I am not happy when it becomes a new story. Littlefinger is a completely different character, and Dany is quite different. I just want to see the characters GRRM created in the way he created them. I want to see his world on TV, not D&D's.

[protar]

And then someone says there's noone demanding 100% faithful adaptation. Yeah, we don't demand that, we just don't want scenes that aren't in the books.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of hyperbole. I do not want or expect a 100% adaptation. I realise there are things that wouldn't work on screen even if they did in the books. But seriously. Are you actually defending Ros and her lesbian scenes? Or LF teleporting across westeros? Seriously, do not put words in my mouth.

[Mad Queen]

Well that isn't really how I saw it when I was watching the show, but I guess I was just annoyed at the fact that LF was there in the first place :P.

I know, he's been everywhere this season and it annoys me as well.