[Book spoilers] They ruined Robb Stark

[birdsong66]

.

Your opinion is most upsetting, Ser. :bowdown:

Re: Episode Edition w/D&D--Yeah, that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. But, to be honest, it does shed light on the HBO version of events. Again, it's those of us that have read the books that are left dumfounded at the reasoning. I've said it before, but I really don't think D&D like Catelyn as a character, so placing the blame on her doesn't exactly surprise so much as makes me want to ask them for the reasons.

With that, I would like to recognize Michelle Fairley for taking a character who is easily the most polarizing character in the series, and delivering in such a way as those who really don't like or understand her actually feel for her. It's a testament to her abilities if not always the material she's working with, IMO. Well done and thank you Ms. Fairley.

[Currawong]

That’s an inevitable price that must be paid, because it’s the moronic majority who also supplies the majority of the subscription fees. In a world where half the people are below average, no business will willingly allow half its revenue stream to die off. So they have to aim low. Peter Jackson and Bill Gates both did the same thing. Aim stupid, and you make more money: stupidity is never in short supply. The bottom line is that it’s all about the bottom line.

No, its NOT about pandering to the lowest common denominator at all. It is being 100% realistic about the demands of a TV show vs reading a book, where there is an amazingly complex world and multiple parallel story lines.

If you're reading a book (or a series of books), you can always easily flick back to check things. 'Wasn't that the girl we met ten chapters ago?' etc. But you cannot do that in a movie, or on TV. On TV, the storyline and the characters have to make sense when shown over a period of weeks or months, and expecting people to remember all the tiny trivial details between (say) Episodes 1 and 8 in a series is just pushing it too far, even for highly intelligent viewers. It's easy for devoted book fans to do this, but it's not easy or practiable for people who are coming to the series just as viewers.

And even if those viewers record the episodes or look them up again online, doing that is hardly the practical equivalent of having a book and just flicking back through the pages. It is about time that many devoted book fans "get real" about the demands of adapting complex books for the screen.

I challenge many of the people who constantly gripe and complain about why did the writers do / not do certain things, to actually sit down themselves and try to write ten-55 minute screenplays. Try adapting ACOK in a way that meets budget and practical requirements, keeps us in touch with all main characters, shows all the critical plotlines, shows us all the stuff that is merely exposition or description in the books, leads adequately into series 3, etc - and does all of that inside a total of 550 minutes. :D

Oh so very easy to criticise and nitpick, but I think that little exercise would give you a new appreciation for the great job that the writers are really doing.

[CrypticWeirwood]

Oh so very easy to criticise and nitpick, but I think that little exercise would give you a new appreciation for the great job that the writers are really doing.

I’m sure you must have meant that for someone else, because I of all people have not been the one to denigrate the writers’ efforts. How I could gain a new appreciation for them is difficult to envision, especially if that appreciation is expected to be better than it is now — which is quite high, actually.

I don’t disagree with the rest of what you wrote, though.

[SerMixalot]

Your opinion is most upsetting, Ser. :bowdown: Re: Episode Edition w/D&D--Yeah, that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. But, to be honest, it does shed light on the HBO version of events. Again, it's those of us that have read the books that are left dumfounded at the reasoning. I've said it before, but I really don't think D&D like Catelyn as a character, so placing the blame on her doesn't exactly surprise so much as makes me want to ask them for the reasons. With that, I would like to recognize Michelle Fairley for taking a character who is easily the most polarizing character in the series, and delivering in such a way as those who really don't like or understand her actually feel for her. It's a testament to her abilities if not always the material she's working with, IMO. Well done and thank you Ms. Fairley.

I cant understand not like the character Cat. I mean she is a MOM. Anyone who is a mom, has a mom, knows a mom, knows that they will do anything to protect their children. Her actions and motives seem right in line with that.

i guess the cat haters hate their moms, that is the only explanation

[SerMixalot]

On TV, the storyline and the characters have to make sense when shown over a period of weeks or months, and expecting people to remember all the tiny trivial details between (say) Episodes 1 and 8 in a series is just pushing it too far, even for highly intelligent viewers. It's easy for devoted book fans to do this, but it's not easy or practiable for people who are coming to the series just as viewers.

yet we are expected to believe cersei thinks tyrion loves ros cause of anecklace given to her early last season?

[Ser Hippie]

yet we are expected to believe cersei thinks tyrion loves ros cause of anecklace given to her early last season?

Why do you bring this up when Cersei specifically says one of her spies told her Ros was Tyrion's whore-love?

The necklace is meant to be additional evidence and a callback if people remembered.

[SerMixalot]

No, its NOT about pandering to the lowest common denominator at all. It is being 100% realistic about the demands of a TV show vs reading a book, where there is an amazingly complex world and multiple parallel story lines. If you're reading a book (or a series of books), you can always easily flick back to check things. 'Wasn't that the girl we met ten chapters ago?' etc. But you cannot do that in a movie, or on TV. On TV, the storyline and the characters have to make sense when shown over a period of weeks or months, and expecting people to remember all the tiny trivial details between (say) Episodes 1 and 8 in a series is just pushing it too far, even for highly intelligent viewers. It's easy for devoted book fans to do this, but it's not easy or practiable for people who are coming to the series just as viewers. And even if those viewers record the episodes or look them up again online, doing that is hardly the practical equivalent of having a book and just flicking back through the pages. It is about time that many devoted book fans "get real" about the demands of adapting complex books for the screen. I challenge many of the people who constantly gripe and complain about why did the writers do / not do certain things, to actually sit down themselves and try to write ten-55 minute screenplays. Try adapting ACOK in a way that meets budget and practical requirements, keeps us in touch with all main characters, shows all the critical plotlines, shows us all the stuff that is merely exposition or description in the books, leads adequately into series 3, etc - and does all of that inside a total of 550 minutes. :D Oh so very easy to criticise and nitpick, but I think that little exercise would give you a new appreciation for the great job that the writers are really doing.

Im sorry but it can be done. Case in point season 1

Another Case in Point Theon and WInterfell storyline this season.

D&D didnt trust the source material so they felt they had to change it. Some of those changes are expected, the scope of the world requiring more sets, more characters meaning more actors. Fine, I accept that and the Winterfell storyline is an example of doing that adaption near perfectly.

What makes no sense is changes for change sake. Dany's story or Robbs story or Jon's story. They were fine as is. Case in point, WE ALL LOVE THE BOOKS. It is nonsensical to say that changes to Jons storyline are needed when they just completely mischaracterize his character and the story in the book would not have required any significant changes ie new sets or actors. It was dramatic as written by GRRM. But cause D&D couldnt trust the viewers they chickened out to put sophmorish penis jokes in the script dramatically changing Jons character. It was not needed. Stick with teh story, trust the story, change and adapt what you have to do, combine characters, eliminate characters, eliminate storylinesI GET THAT. Changing characters to create romance or some other cliched nonsense ruins the story and will cause a loss in viewership more than putting an intelligent script on the screen

[SerMixalot]

Why do you bring this up when Cersei specifically says one of her spies told her Ros was Tyrion's whore-love? The necklace is meant to be additional evidence and a callback if people remembered.

u defeat your own argument. They use a callback which requires a viewer to pay attention to details, that is the mark of smart writing.

[SerMixalot]

&Why cant they trust the viewer to remember who Robb is without having to have him in every episode flirting with some girl. Then have a reveal that he was wounded and married. People would have to do the same thing you just described callback to who and what robb is. There is enough exposition along the way to keep Robb in people's minds. Unfortunately D&D went the classic TV route identifying Robb as the starof season 2 and centered the story around him and then set about trying to IMPROVE GRRMs work by changing his love story to a cliched non sequitor.

[SerMixalot]

btw please forgive me if I am coming across as harsh, I appreciate the debate on the forum, am learning alot and believe it or not am enjoying the season even withall the changes.

[Ser Hippie]

u defeat your own argument. They use a callback which requires a viewer to pay attention to details, that is the mark of smart writing.

What are you talking about?

The show has Cersei explicitly say one of her spies told her Ros was Tyrion's whore, the necklace is confirmation of the story, not the sole proof. They didn't rely solely on the callback to season one, it was a little addition and nothing more.

If remembering the necklace was necessary to understanding Cersei believing Ros was Tyrion's whore you might have a point, but it wasn't.

[SerMixalot]

ummm since tyrion had no interaction with Ros, other than to have Bronn send her to Joffrey, where exactly did cersei get this information? From spies? ummm kind of dumb unless the spies intentionally mislead her, which means, despite what she said it was Varys which means Varyris was protecting Tyrion, fine enough. But dont you think that would impact Tyrions relationship with Varys cause Varys threw ros under the proverbial bus, and Tyrion has a thing for broken things (ie someone like Ros).

just goes to show the plot holes created by D&D,

so we are left with the callback to season 1, which is my point, observent viewers.

that is why GRRMs version was perfect in this scenario.

my point is that there was a better way to handle so much of this season and invariably that leads to remaining loyal to the books.

In this case, D&D;s story would have been infinitely more plausible if a. Ros was not sent to Joffrey and b. Tyrioin had some interaction with her.

[SerMixalot]

and if the interaction between ros and tyrion is the Joffrey incident (which is the sole established connection between tyrion and Ros) one has to wonder why cersei would think that Tyrion loved her, cause it has been established that tyrion detests joffrey

so we are either to believe Cer. Doesnt know that tyrion sent Ros to Joff (then breaking the only established current link between Ros and Tyrion)

or

Cer. believes that despite loving Ros would send his love to have sex with a vicious boy he hates

[Ser Hippie]

Why are you going on about something you've been proven wrong about in a topic you created specifically to rant about it in?

Cersei has no reason to care about specifics, she believes Tyrion is a depraved whore-monger and a source she apparently trusts (probably Varys or an agent who really reports to Varys) tells her Ros is Tyrion's whore. They investigate further and discover Ros has a Lannister necklace. Voila. It's actually similar to the Rugen scenario from the books, where Cersei believes the Tyrells freed Tyrion because she finds an old Gardener (not even Tyrell) coin in Rugen's cell.

It's not a plot hole, it's just an example of you frantically trying to nitpick something that isn't there.

[SerMixalot]

Why are you going on about something you've been proven wrong about in a topic you created specifically to rant about it in? Cersei has no reason to care about specifics, she believes Tyrion is a depraved whore-monger and a source she apparently trusts (probably Varys or an agent who really reports to Varys) tells her Ros is Tyrion's whore. They investigate further and discover Ros has a Lannister necklace. Voila. It's actually similar to the Rugen scenario from the books, where Cersei believes the Tyrells freed Tyrion because she finds an old Gardener (not even Tyrell) coin in Rugen's cell. It's not a plot hole, it's just an example of you frantically trying to nitpick something that isn't there.

so cersei is an idiot? that is your point? Cersei is too stupid to want some assurance that the life she is holding in the balance of her childs life has some power over tyrion? she is that careless? Ok perhaps, but still. in teh book a relationship was established between Tyrionand Alayaya, so Cersei's actions while misguided were reasonable.

or it doesnt matter who the spy is? Cause if it IS Varys, wouldnt you agree that would impact Tyrion and Varys' relationship?

[SerMixalot]

these points I am making are why GRRM went to such trouble to estabish the relationship with Alayaya. D&D ignored that connection requiring the viewer to ignore basic questions

[Ser Hippie]

Yes, the point of the scene is that Cersei is both vicious and fallible. Yes, she screwed up. Having her sources tell her that a particular whore is Tyrion's favorite and then finding said whore with a Lannister necklace seems like more than enough evidence for Cersei (either book or TV version), since she's prone to jumping to the wrong conclusions. You seriously think a reliable source pointing her to a whore with a valuable Lannister item isn't evidence?

It's funny because on one hand you complain about people having to be hand held and on the other you're advocating for multiple scenes to set up Cersei "knowing" Ros is Tyrion's whore just to build up to one scene that is explained perfectly fine anyway.

And yeah, if it's Varys that's important but also not a big deal seeing as Varys is pretty chummy with Tyrion in both the series and the books.

[Reposado]

In the context of writing a TV series, I don't think there was any right or wrong way to show "Robb marrying some other girl" and thus breaking his oath to the Freys.

true. but there are interesting ways and uninteresting ways. this was an uninteresting way.

if they wanted to show why he fell in love with her, then show it. other than her body, what is to like about this girl? being against war and slavery is not a personality trait. the only thing we as viewers know about her personality is that she is rude and arrogant

Why are you going on about something you've been proven wrong about in a topic you created specifically to rant about it in? Cersei has no reason to care about specifics, she believes Tyrion is a depraved whore-monger and a source she apparently trusts (probably Varys or an agent who really reports to Varys) tells her Ros is Tyrion's whore. They investigate further and discover Ros has a Lannister necklace. Voila. It's actually similar to the Rugen scenario from the books, where Cersei believes the Tyrells freed Tyrion because she finds an old Gardener (not even Tyrell) coin in Rugen's cell. It's not a plot hole, it's just an example of you frantically trying to nitpick something that isn't there.

unless the point is that cersei has bad sources, it doesn't work. as far as we know, tyrion hasnt seen ros in kings landing. you can't just assume weird connections that haven't been alluded to, to fill in plot holes.

[SerMixalot]

well in my defense the argument has evolved thus my apparent contradiction. There are two points one the changes and two the trusting the viewers attention to details.

my point to point one is that the way D&D handled it creates questions and unresolved plot holes. ie. the lack of a relationship between ros and tyrion or the impact on other relationships, Varys and Tyrion. Book tyrion has no reason to distrust Varys but if Varys is the spy in the show that gave Cers. the info then it woiuld logically impact their relationship

point two derives from point 1 D&D expect viewers to ignore things like where Cersei got her information, just accept that some someone gave her Ros and Tyrion, again based on what? where would that relationship come from?

[Reposado]

D&D expect viewers to ignore things like where Cersei got her information, just accept that some someone gave her Ros and Tyrion, again based on what? where would that relationship come from?

very lazy spies, tryion shouldn't be working so hard to hide shae. cersei's people aren't even following him.

but more likely this is how it went down

David, flipping through ACOK: this scene with cersei finiding alayaya is pretty good, lets stick that in there

DB: hmm, we havent really set that up, we don't have a whore that could be logically suspected

david, grinning: we have a whore