[Book & TV Spoilers] Insightful interview with writer Bryan Cogman

[Arya The Assassin]

Like giving us information about the Targaryans and their dragons (yet book fans are always complaining about how so much backstory is omitted!), or making Tywin himself into a real character, and thus setting some foundation for his later appearances. We don't really lose anything of Arya's essential character - she is still a kid who is ;living on the edge of danger and discovery, who has already killed one person herself and is willing to ask that three men be murdered!

Yes, and we also get a glimpse into Tywin's 'war chamber' so to speak (his strategic plans, his commands to Clegane, etc.). I think it was a smart way of providing some expository information, while letting two important characters share the screen together and engage in 'verbal duels'. My impression of Tywin actually changed a bit after seeing how he treated Arya. And Arya showed that although she likes to put up a tough facade, she's still a little girl inside, albeit a quite cunning one.

Two of her scenes with Tywin had some dramatic overtones as well: When she tried to avoid being recognized by Petyr (and of course, Petyr being present there in the first place and sharing information with Tywin was interesting), and the scene where she's tempted to stab Tywin in the back. I think her plotline in season 2 also shows that she's able to take care of herself, despite being captured and isolated from her family, and despite being a little girl (which is essentially how her character progresses in the books as well).

But it was ultimately the dialogue and acting that made the scenes one of the highlights of season 2 for me.

[Lastofhisname]

This I'd a great topic and one I've been expecting since I became disheartened by the show.

My view is that I understand certain segments had to be changed got adaptation sake. I agree that Weasel soup couldn't be added due to the extra plot that went with it. But it is the shear weight of completely new material that staggers me. Are they that arrogant that after Season 1 being so successful (mostly due to it being so faithful) that they think they can now out-write GRRM? If you are going to change the motivation for Robb to marry, at least get the fucking girl's name right! I mean Volantis is a tiny fragment of ADwD so there's no need for any setting up of the place, especially as there was so much time apportioned to it! I realise Jeyne is quite a boring character but if they were going to make up all this shit about Volantis, then they could have made up something equally as relevant (or not!) for her.

Another issue I had is the amount of useless exposition scenes. Such as Tyrion and Bronn walking through a thriving Market, when Renly was supposedly blockading their supplies. If the idea was simply to portray the population of KL's hatred for the Imp, then it adds nothing because he has no other interaction with them. If it was to portray their hatred for Joffrey and explain why they attack the royal party after Myrcella leaves, then why choose a thriving Market place?

I think I'm going to rewatch the series and see how much running time these crappy scenes took, because I suspect that the total would be more than adequate to have fleshed out Qhorin a little more or briefly reintroduced Beric and given the brotherhood, for one an explanation, and a setup for season 3.

[kg1982]

Are they that arrogant that after Season 1 being so successful (mostly due to it being so faithful) that they think they can now out-write GRRM?

I didn't realize that Martin was on par with Will Shakespeare now.. In fact, I seem to remember a good bit of complaining last summer when ADWD came out. The reason why the changes were made to Season 2 was because they wouldn't work in a visual medium or were problematic even in the books (such as Jeyne Westerling).

[kephv]

Changing up Jon's storyline in favor of a hilarious conversation with Ygritte really worked for me.

Perhaps you'd like to see them change up all the significant events in KL next season and have them replaced with all the characters doing stand-up? Maybe Tywin will make a joke about Tyrion that he doesn't like which leads to his death. I mean, what does it matter as long as the conclusion is the same?

I suggest you have missed "what" those Arya / Tywin scenes were doing. Those scenes have a much wider relevance to the story than just Arya's own character arc - if you actually watch them, you will realise that they have multiple longer term purposes. Like giving us information about the Targaryans and their dragons (yet book fans are always complaining about how so much backstory is omitted!), or making Tywin himself into a real character, and thus setting some foundation for his later appearances. We don't really lose anything of Arya's essential character - she is still a kid who is ;living on the edge of danger and discovery, who has already killed one person herself and is willing to ask that three men be murdered!!

A bit of backstory is alright. But with it we get long scenes with all the fake tension (e.g. LF almost recognizing Arya, Arya grabbing a knife thinking of killing Tywin -- which makes no sense at all considering she can just walk out of there and say "Tywin" to Jaqen), extended scenes of Tywin playing grandpa to Arya, all of which ended up going absolutely nowhere.

And we did lose a lot of Arya's essential character. She goes through quite a few stages in Clash that are completely absent in second season.

[Guest]

if Martin were to enroll them in an ASOIAF class, that would be excellent.

Potential courses at ASOIAF University!

Tyrion-Female Relations (Basic Course)

Tyrion-Father Relations (Advanced Course)

Lessons in Grief: Catelyn and Robb

Realism in Medieval Marriages

Building Tension Beyond the Wall

Jon Snow: Not a Dummy

Prophecy 101

Elements of Style: Littlefinger

Arya Studies

[CrypticWeirwood]

They're talking about Arya getting Jaqen to help her free the Northern prisoners in Harrenhal,

Um, what Northern prisoners in Harrenhal? The show had none such.

[jlk7e]

Um, what Northern prisoners in Harrenhal? The show had none such.

Indeed, that was rather my point - I understand that there were a bunch of plot elements necessary for "weasel soup" to make sense that weren't introduced. My point was that calling Arya "Weasel" was not one of those elements.

That being said, northern prisoners would have been easy enough to introduce. Bolton and the Mummers would have taken much more time to explain, along with the difficulty (which already exists in the book, to a lesser degree) of explaining why Arya doesn't ever announce herself to Glover or Bolton and instead decides to escape, murdering a northern soldier to do so.

[Lastofhisname]

I didn't realize that Martin was on par with Will Shakespeare now.. In fact, I seem to remember a good bit of complaining last summer when ADWD came out. The reason why the changes were made to Season 2 was because they wouldn't work in a visual medium or were problematic even in the books (such as Jeyne Westerling).

I agree that there had to be some changes made for the adaptation. I just believe that they made the wrong decisions as to what direction to go in. This is just my personal opinion, some people seem to share it, others like yourself disagree. By all accounts the non-book readers loved season 2, so to me it's quite obvious who they are aiming the show at and would explain the dumbing down of the show for the ignorant masses.

[protar]

1. I don't think that we're watching the same show...It's pretty clear that Jon has quite a few mentors and father figures- I'd say the relationship that they developed between Jeor and Jon is father-son like.

2. From a pure entertainment value, I thought Ygritte was more fun.

1. Yes he does have plenty of father figures. But D+D (not me.) have said he doesn't. So therefore it's a gross misinterpretation of the not only the book character, but the show character as well. Can you not see why I find this worrying, and doubt their dedication to the series?

2. Well we'll just have to disagree there. Usually I can atleast enjoy the invented scenes on their own even if I don't enjoy them as part of the adaptation (e.g Arya/Tywin). Not these ones though. And also, I would hope that this show would try and be more intelligent than having scenes just for entertainment. They also need to further the plot and character development and three identical scenes of Ygritte making Jon uncomfortable was not this.

[protar]

Indeed, that was rather my point - I understand that there were a bunch of plot elements necessary for "weasel soup" to make sense that weren't introduced. My point was that calling Arya "Weasel" was not one of those elements.

That being said, northern prisoners would have been easy enough to introduce. Bolton and the Mummers would have taken much more time to explain, along with the difficulty (which already exists in the book, to a lesser degree) of explaining why Arya doesn't ever announce herself to Glover or Bolton and instead decides to escape, murdering a northern soldier to do so.

I believe it could've been made to work. It would just require the following simple things:

• Tywin briefly mentioning the northern prisoners in one of his war councils, taking up all of 10 seconds, and actually giving a purpose to Arya's being there beyond entertainment.
  
• Arya taking the alias Weasel.
  
• Robb sending Bolton to take Harrenhal in episodes 6 or 7. This scene wouldn't take long at all.
  
• Tywin leaves Harrenhal at E7 giving him a reasonable amount of time to reach KL.
  
• The Mummers wouldn't be necessary just yet. Arya and co. could free the prisoners, allowing them to cause sufficient havoc with Gregor's reduced garrison. Then Bolton himself could turn up, and with the chaos he would be able to easily take the castle, thanks to Arya (And yes, I just suggested a deviation from the books. Shock horror :P ).
  
• Arya would not announce herself to the northmen, because Bolton shows up at once, and she'll have heard all sorts of horrible stories about him.
  
• Budgetry issues could, as I've already suggested be solved by intercutting with the HOTU, so when an expensive part of Weasel Soup comes up, you switch to HOTU, and when an expensive part of HOTU comes up, you switch to Weasel Soup.
  

This could happen in E8, which fell a bit flat for me, with not much going on. It needed some meat and Weasel Soup (and HOTU.) could've provided this. I'm not seeing how this couldn't have been done. But then I'm not an expert of show running. However if you are going to use the whole "you don't know enough about showrunning to make any valid points." keep in mind two things please:

• One: Hardly any of us here are qualified TV show producers, so if I am not allowed to criticise the show due to lack of knowledge, you can't praise the show either, as you unless you produce shows yourself, how can you know if they're working to the best of their abilities? See the logical fallacy?
  
• Two: Rather than just saying that I'm wrong and don't understand, explain how. Saying "Oh but there's time and budget constraints and some things don't work on screen, these guys know what they're doing." isn't an explanation.
  

[jlk7e]

1. Yes he does have plenty of father figures. But D+D (not me.) have said he doesn't. So therefore it's a gross misinterpretation of the not only the book character, but the show character as well. Can you not see why I find this worrying, and doubt their dedication to the series?

Do you have a link for this (repeated) contention? I think it makes a great deal of sense to make Jon have a much more problematic relationship with Ned than Ned and Catelyn's children do, and I think there's textual grounds for it. We actually get very little interaction between Jon and Ned in the book - Jon looks up to Ned and admires him, but I don't get the sense that they were all that close - note that when Jon is saying his goodbyes, he goes to Bran, Robb, and Arya, but not to Ned. When he thinks about Ned, at least as far as I can recall, it's only rarely about actual personal moments between them. We never get even a conversation between the two of them in the book, and certainly nothing like Ned's patient attempts at parenting Bran, Sansa, and Arya. In fact, the Stark who has paternal conversations with Jon in the books is Benjen (whose actual relationship to Jon, of course, is likely the same as Ned's), and Jon largely rejects or doesn't understand what Benjen is telling him until much later, after Benjen has disappeared. Ned himself, while he loves Jon, quite clearly puts him in a different category from his true-born children (because, I think, Jon is not actually his son). Whether this means that Jon doesn't have a father figure? I don't know, but I think that's a valid read on the material. As to whether he develops surrogate father figures later, I'm not really going to believe that Benioff and Weiss have said that he doesn't until you give quotes.

I agree that there had to be some changes made for the adaptation. I just believe that they made the wrong decisions as to what direction to go in. This is just my personal opinion, some people seem to share it, others like yourself disagree. By all accounts the non-book readers loved season 2, so to me it's quite obvious who they are aiming the show at and would explain the dumbing down of the show for the ignorant masses.

Firstly, most book readers loved season 2, as well, and not all book readers have the same problem with changes that you do. I really hate the fact that purists act as though their way of reading the books is the only way to do so. The incredible condescension for the non-book-reading audience is also ridiculous - of course a TV show can't be designed to appeal only to people who read the books, and the fact that someone hasn't read the books is not an indication that they are the "ignorant masses" - there are plenty of very intelligent and erudite critics writing about the series who haven't read the books. It's a good thing for the TV show if these people like the show and can follow it without having read the books.

Secondly, while almost everyone says they see the need for some changes, there's basically not any change that they can make that somebody won't complain about. Personally, I think the changes are kind of a mixed bag. Some of them have worked terrifically, some of them have been necessary changes given the two mediums, and some have been a bit clunky, like Robb/Talisa. Some changes, like Arya/Tywin, I really enjoyed, but also found problematic due to the lack of pay-off. That said, I understand that Benioff and Weiss's job is to make a television show, and that that means they have to make some tough choices. On balance, they've produced a very good show, and, as such, I'm not going to judge them based on the premise that they made "unnecessary" changes. They made the changes they saw fit to create an effective television show, and that's absolutely their right to do.

Arya taking the alias Weasel.

Why is this important?

Robb sending Bolton to take Harrenhal in episodes 6 or 7. This scene wouldn't take long at all.

Would this make sense? Tywin's whole army is at Harrenhal at this point.

The Mummers wouldn't be necessary just yet. Arya and co. could free the prisoners, allowing them to cause sufficient havoc with Gregor's reduced garrison. Then Bolton himself could turn up, and with the chaos he would be able to easily take the castle, thanks to Arya (And yes, I just suggested a deviation from the books. Shock horror :P ).

Yup, that's a pretty big deviation from the books. And it changes the whole nature of what happened. In the book, Arya's final death is just as wasted as her previous ones; the capture of Harrenhal would have happened regardless of what Arya did. In your version, Arya is actually responsible for the capture of the castle. Furthermore, your version leaves the Mountain in a weird place, possibly captured by Northern troops.

Arya would not announce herself to the northmen, because Bolton shows up at once, and she'll have heard all sorts of horrible stories about him.

When and how would all these horrible stories be established? This is a guy who's been acting as Robb's right hand for the entire season. But what's clear from this account is that your criticism isn't even with making changes. Your proposed version makes a ton of changes. It's that you think you could do a better job making changes than the showrunners did. I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm inclined to side with them because they've made an excellent TV show, while you've made a bunch of posts on an internet message board.

One: Hardly any of us here are qualified TV show producers, so if I am not allowed to criticise the show due to lack of knowledge, you can't praise the show either, as you unless you produce shows yourself, how can you know if they're working to the best of their abilities? See the logical fallacy?

No logical fallacy. We are praising the show because we think it is good. Your are criticizing the show because you think you could have done better. That is a difference in kind.

[protar]

Do you have a link for this (repeated) contention? I think it makes a great deal of sense to make Jon have a much more problematic relationship with Ned than Ned and Catelyn's children do, and I think there's textual grounds for it. We actually get very little interaction between Jon and Ned in the book - Jon looks up to Ned and admires him, but I don't get the sense that they were all that close - note that when Jon is saying his goodbyes, he goes to Bran, Robb, and Arya, but not to Ned. When he thinks about Ned, at least as far as I can recall, it's only rarely about actual personal moments between them. We never get even a conversation between the two of them in the book, and certainly nothing like Ned's patient attempts at parenting Bran, Sansa, and Arya. In fact, the Stark who has paternal conversations with Jon in the books is Benjen (whose actual relationship to Jon, of course, is likely the same as Ned's), and Jon largely rejects or doesn't understand what Benjen is telling him until much later, after Benjen has disappeared. Ned himself, while he loves Jon, quite clearly puts him in a different category from his true-born children (because, I think, Jon is not actually his son). Whether this means that Jon doesn't have a father figure? I don't know, but I think that's a valid read on the material. As to whether he develops surrogate father figures later, I'm not really going to believe that Benioff and Weiss have said that he doesn't until you give quotes.

Firstly, most book readers loved season 2, as well, and not all book readers have the same problem with changes that you do. I really hate the fact that purists act as though their way of reading the books is the only way to do so. The incredible condescension for the non-book-reading audience is also ridiculous - of course a TV show can't be designed to appeal only to people who read the books, and the fact that someone hasn't read the books is not an indication that they are the "ignorant masses" - there are plenty of very intelligent and erudite critics writing about the series who haven't read the books. It's a good thing for the TV show if these people like the show and can follow it without having read the books.

Secondly, while almost everyone says they see the need for some changes, there's basically not any change that they can make that somebody won't complain about. Personally, I think the changes are kind of a mixed bag. Some of them have worked terrifically, some of them have been necessary changes given the two mediums, and some have been a bit clunky, like Robb/Talisa. Some changes, like Arya/Tywin, I really enjoyed, but also found problematic due to the lack of pay-off. That said, I understand that Benioff and Weiss's job is to make a television show, and that that means they have to make some tough choices. On balance, they've produced a very good show, and, as such, I'm not going to judge them based on the premise that they made "unnecessary" changes. They made the changes they saw fit to create an effective television show, and that's absolutely their right to do.

Why is this important?

Would this make sense? Tywin's whole army is at Harrenhal at this point.

Yup, that's a pretty big deviation from the books. And it changes the whole nature of what happened. In the book, Arya's final death is just as wasted as her previous ones; the capture of Harrenhal would have happened regardless of what Arya did. In your version, Arya is actually responsible for the capture of the castle. Furthermore, your version leaves the Mountain in a weird place, possibly captured by Northern troops.

When and how would all these horrible stories be established? This is a guy who's been acting as Robb's right hand for the entire season. But what's clear from this account is that your criticism isn't even with making changes. Your proposed version makes a ton of changes. It's that you think you could do a better job making changes than the showrunners did. I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm inclined to side with them because they've made an excellent TV show, while you've made a bunch of posts on an internet message board.

No logical fallacy. We are praising the show because we think it is good. Your are criticizing the show because you think you could have done better. That is a difference in kind.

The statement about Jon, is in one of the behind the episode videos I believe. I'll try and find it. And really you've just lent evidence to my point. It's something that might appear to be a logical conclusion to a casual reader, but looking deeper it really isn't true. Therefore I do not believe D+D fully understand the source material.

As to Arya:

• The Weasel alias isn't really important, but it is a nice little reference if they wanted to do the whole Weasel Soup joke.
  
• Why would it not make sense to send Bolton down to Harrenhal? He could easily just split his forces once more and send Bolton's half off to Harrenhal.
  
• I'd say that the Weasel Soup most certainly does aid Bolton's capture of Harrenhal. What might have been a siege (if a brief one.), becomes Bolton just walking in and being given the castle. However there is no time to introduce the Mummers so there needs to be another explanation of how the prisoners can help overrun the castle.
  
• How would the stories be established? Erm.. I don't know, perhaps Arya might've heard them in Winterfell her entire life from Old Nan? The stories of the Bolton's and their infamy are widespread in the north. Arya only needs to drop a few of them to Hot Pie and Gnedry to persuade them to leave.
  

My proposed idea does deviate from the books, but not to the degree the show does.

I do not think I could make a better TV show. I believe my ideas (and other people's ideas.) would work better on screen, but I do not pretend to be able to know how to manage writing, casting, set design, location scouting and all the other things involved in the creation of the show. There is a difference. D+D have made a good TV show. A very good one, make no mistake. But it could've been great.

[jlk7e]

The statement about Jon, is in one of the behind the episode videos I believe. I'll try and find it. And really you've just lent evidence to my point. It's something that might appear to be a logical conclusion to a casual reader, but looking deeper it really isn't true. Therefore I do not believe D+D fully understand the source material.

Firstly, changing things in the show doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand the source material. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean here - what isn't really true when you look deeper? Interpreting the story as Jon not having a particularly close relationship with Ned is totally reasonable, because he doesn't seem to have had a very close relationship with Ned. Their relationship is problematic, and Jon resents Ned for never telling him about his mother. Whether this means that Jon didn't have a father figure? I don't know; I'd want to see what Benioff and Weiss actually said before I make any judgment.

Why would it not make sense to send Bolton down to Harrenhal? He could easily just split his forces once more and send Bolton's half off to Harrenhal.

Tywin's whole force is in Harrenhal. It doesn't make any sense to delegate a small part of his force to attack Tywin's main army.

I'd say that the Weasel Soup most certainly does aid Bolton's capture of Harrenhal. What might have been a siege (if a brief one.), becomes Bolton just walking in and being given the castle. However there is no time to introduce the Mummers so there needs to be another explanation of how the prisoners can help overrun the castle.

It wouldn't have been a siege. The Mummers would have released the prisoners anyway a few hours later, and things would have been exactly the same.

How would the stories be established? Erm.. I don't know, perhaps Arya might've heard them in Winterfell her entire life from Old Nan? The stories of the Bolton's and their infamy are widespread in the north. Arya only needs to drop a few of them to Hot Pie and Gnedry to persuade them to leave.

This could be done, but it would still make Arya's decision not to reveal herself even harder to take than in the book, and it's already hard to take in the book.

My proposed idea does deviate from the books, but not to the degree the show does.

Is that supposed to be the criterion on which we judge changes? Changes ought to be judged on how well they work for the medium, not on how close they are to the books.

I do not think I could make a better TV show. I believe my ideas (and other people's ideas.) would work better on screen, but I do not pretend to be able to know how to manage writing, casting, set design, location scouting and all the other things involved in the creation of the show. There is a difference. D+D have made a good TV show. A very good one, make no mistake. But it could've been great.

Even thinking that your ideas would work better on screen is dubious. Your proposed version of Weasel Soup, for example, would leave viewers raging at their screens that Arya doesn't reveal herself to Bolton.

[protar]

Firstly, changing things in the show doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand the source material. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean here - what isn't really true when you look deeper? Interpreting the story as Jon not having a particularly close relationship with Ned is totally reasonable, because he doesn't seem to have had a very close relationship with Ned. Their relationship is problematic, and Jon resents Ned for never telling him about his mother. Whether this means that Jon didn't have a father figure? I don't know; I'd want to see what Benioff and Weiss actually said before I make any judgment.

Well I'll try and find it when I have time.

Tywin's whole force is in Harrenhal. It doesn't make any sense to delegate a small part of his force to attack Tywin's main army.

Well, perhaps Bolton could be sent to ravage the land around Harrenhal to draw Tywin out. Then when he hears Tywin has left he skirts round and takes Harrenhal. This does change the tactics of the war somewhat, but it's part of the butterfly effect of having Bolton with Robb originally (which is necessary to introduce him properly.).

It wouldn't have been a siege. The Mummers would have released the prisoners anyway a few hours later, and things would have been exactly the same.

Fairplay. However I don't see how making Weasel Soup a bit more important to the taking of Harrenhal is a bad thing. It's more dramatic which is good for TV, it helps to get around the absence of the mummers.

This could be done, but it would still make Arya's decision not to reveal herself even harder to take than in the book, and it's already hard to take in the book.

How so? Imagine it. Weasel Soup has just gone down and then the man to claim Harrenhal is the head of your family's ancient enemy who is rumoured to flay people alive. Perfectly reasonable for Arya to not reveal herself. Moreso than in the books perhaps.

Is that supposed to be the criterion on which we judge changes? Changes ought to be judged on how well they work for the medium, not on how close they are to the books.

No, however you pointed out that my proposal also deviated from the books, so I just thought I'd clarify things.

Even thinking that your ideas would work better on screen is dubious. Your proposed version of Weasel Soup, for example, would leave viewers raging at their screens that Arya doesn't reveal herself to Bolton.

I think my own ideas are good? How dare I! :rolleyes: You seem to be saying that I am not aloud to criticise the show or to speculate on what might've worked better. It's just a nonsensical argument that defeats the entire point of this forum.

[jlk7e]

I think my own ideas are good? How dare I! :rolleyes: You seem to be saying that I am not aloud to criticise the show or to speculate on what might've worked better. It's just a nonsensical argument that defeats the entire point of this forum.

It's perfectly fair game to question this or that particular change that the creators have made. What irks me is the attitude that because the writers/showrunners made different choices than you would have made, that means that they are mediocre people who don't understand ASOIAF. Different people are going to emphasize different themes, and that entails different ways of adapting the material. Furthermore, I feel like you have a total double standard, where any change from the books by the showrunners must be rigorously justified in a way that you personally approve, while your own extrapolations are free to change the book in whatever manner you like. You say, for instance, that your version of weasel soup, where Arya is solely responsible for freeing the northern prisoners, is good because it would emphasize Arya's agency. But that's arguably an enormous change from the books, where it seems to me that part of Martin's point is that Arya's revenge is ultimately deeply unsatisfactory. There is a real irony in the fact that her third death, which she used so cleverly to arrange the weasel soup incident, is actually just as pointless as killing Chiswyck and Weese. You've decided that that irony isn't important. Fine. But maybe you should be willing to cut the showrunners a little slack when they do the same thing.

Finally, I really think you haven't thought through how awkward Arya's decision not to reveal herself would be on screen. A big issue with television is that it's actually much harder to be subtle than it is in the books, because it's so much tighter. Roose Bolton has been toned down from what he's like in the books, because if you showed book Roose Bolton on television, everyone would know he's going to betray Robb. In the books, Bolton works fine, because there's so much seemingly extraneous detail that you don't necessarily know what's going to prove important and what's not. Roose Bolton is introduced in the books along with a bunch of other northern lords, none of whose loyalty is totally clear. His creepiness can be slowly built up, largely through off hand, marginal remarks. And even going into the Red Wedding, we still don't know for sure what the deal is with him, or can easily miss it.

That's not how television works. If you show Roose Bolton being anywhere near as creepy as he is in the books, everyone's going to know something's up, because every moment in a television show is important. They don't spend time on things for no reason. So, basically, we have two issues at cross purposes - Bolton has to be shown to be really creepy for it to be convincing that Arya not trust him; but Bolton can't be shown to be too creepy if the Red Wedding is to come as a surprise. It seems to me that the second concern is more important - making the Red Wedding, and Roose Bolton's involvement therein, a surprise, is more important than the weasel soup incident. And my assumption is that this is what the showrunners decided, as well. Were they right? I'm sure that reasonable disagreeements can be had. But I really don't think the decision came about because of too great a love of Arya/Tywin stuff. The Arya/Tywin stuff was inserted because they'd already decided to jettison weasel soup and, more broadly, slow down Arya's arc.

[Currawong]

It's perfectly fair game to question this or that particular change that the creators have made. What irks me is the attitude that because the writers/showrunners made different choices than you would have made, that means that they are mediocre people who don't understand ASOIAF. Different people are going to emphasize different themes, and that entails different ways of adapting the material.

Exactly.

It also seems obvious that D & D have already taken a much longer-term view of the story and how it should be told over an entire series, not just individual seasons, than many critics give them credit for. Season 1 was basically setting the scene and introducing everyone to the world of Westeros, including Dany and co. off in the east. It was actually the simplest of the books to adapt for TV.

But from Book 2, everything becomes much more complex, we have multiple parallel plot lines and more and more new characters - and that means taking a very long hard look at what has to be shown or explained (somehow) in Season 2, and what can be moved around or even omitted. The books are also very uneven in terms of what some readers obviously consider to be 'action' and major events, so the writers will need to make adjustments in order to give a suitable dramatic balance to the seasons.

Those decisions are not easy, and frankly, whatever the writers and producers did would have attracted criticism from various book fans who would want more of this person or less of that, or scream loudly because something that was fun but trivial was omitted. There were howls of outrage for much of Season 2 because of the apparent omission of the Reeds - and yet as we have found out recently, D&D have understood their importance, but have decided to move them to Season 3, because that fits in better with their overal adaptation. And obviously the writers just cannot win on backstory - one lot of book fans complain bitterly that they are leaving out lots of stuff (without actually coming up with any sensible and cost-effective way of showing that on TV of course), yet when the writers do give backstory through invented scenes with action via dialogue, there are screams about not following the books and how 'boring' dialogue is!

I don't think it's going to be possible to judge the overall success or failure of the writers until we see the whole product - which now means at least to the end of Season 4, and hopefully to Season 6 (seeing key stars are contracted for 6 years). Just because something or someone does not appear in accordance with 'Book Time, doesn't mean that ít won't appear at all, so I think it's important that we allow the writers to make those decisions and not criticise them prematurely.

[teemo]

Alright, I'll say it. His interview sounded pretentious and like they're writing a "new and improved ASOIAF." He kept saying things like, "I think" a little too much when referencing the book (sounds unprofessional), so he sounds a lot more unfamiliar with the books that tons of posters on this site. He also answered a lot of questions on a shallow level without giving any real explanations. Also, from what he says of the characters, it sounds like he doesn't understand some of them all too well. Also, who ever said that Robb didn't actually love Jeyne? And if you're going to "slow down" Arya's storyline, why don't you do it with something actually relevant and interesting? Also, he talks about Daisy the whore like she's someone important. If she going to have her own "arc" as well? I can't believe that's the first question the interviewer asked when NO ONE CARES. Not impressed.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I think what some of the posters above me have mentioned (as it concerns changing or moving things in the service of the bigger picture) will be especially relevant when it comes to the characters. As a television audience, we need to see the character progress. It'll be much more satisfying and emotional for the audience when Arya murders Polliver with Needle if it's her first concious choice to do so herself. If we had already seen her murder several Lannister guards, it just wouldn't be as effective, dramatically. Same with Jon Snow. If we're to believe that he's capable of being the Lord Commander, I want to see him mature to that point and learn from his mistakes and from those around him. I think Qhorin was a missed opportunity, but it certainly wasn't as bad as some people have claimed it to be. I also understand that there is only so much time available to bring this show to the screen, and understand their choice to further develop Ygritte, as she's around quite a bit longer. In any case, these things should happen gradually and naturally. If adapting anything were easy - let alone an incredibly dense and large-scale novel - everyone would be doing it, and they'd all be doing a great job with it. The books are amazing, and the show is and will continue to be amazing. I don't understand why the supposed fan-base has to be at such odds with each other, although I suspect that as the series continues, many who feel that D&D have disrespected the story and characters will begin to see the bigger picture.

Also, to the poster above: Your opinion is not fact. Myself, and many others, found her storyline to be interesting and engaging. What didn't you find interesting about it? Why wasn't it relevant? If you want to throw out examples for the sake of debate, you'd need to be more specific than that. If you're just being vocal about your complaints, that's fine too, but as it was presented your argument is neither interesting or relevant. Also, in the context of the interview, "I think..." is really more of a substitute for "In my opinion...", seeing as he probably feels the need to walk on egg shells (so to speak) around some fans of the books after their less than respectful barrage on his Twitter account.

[teemo]

Also, to the poster above: Your opinion is not fact. Myself, and many others, found her storyline to be interesting and engaging. What didn't you find interesting about it? Why wasn't it relevant? If you want to throw out examples for the sake of debate, you'd need to be more specific than that. If you're just being vocal about your complaints, that's fine too, but as it was presented your argument is neither interesting or relevant. Also, in the context of the interview, "I think..." is really more of a substitute for "In my opinion...", seeing as he probably feels the need to walk on egg shells (so to speak) around some fans of the books after their less than respectful barrage on his Twitter account.

No need to be so snippy. I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed with his interview. I meant "I think" when it came before, "Brienne killed three men much later in the series..." I didn't find slowing Arya's storyline down to be filled with interesting content, because it was her as a cupbearer with Tywin while they engaged in grandfatherly sweet talk for several episodes, with her whole gritty experience at Harrenhal being watered down. I didn't give my opinion not because I am too "uninteresting" according to you, I just didn't give it because I'm not trying to fight about specific viewpoints of Arya's arc, Jon's, Dany's, whatever. And did I say that my opinion was fact? I'm trying to find the quote "my opinion is fact," but I'm at a loss. If you're referring to Daisy, I can probably safely say that most viewers don't know her name or even remember her, let alone care about her character. I was just giving my opinion that overall I wasn't impressed with the interview. Is that ok with you?

[protar]

No need to be so snippy. I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed with his interview. I meant "I think" when it came before, "Brienne killed three men much later in the series..." I didn't find slowing Arya's storyline down to be filled with interesting content, because it was her as a cupbearer with Tywin while they engaged in grandfatherly sweet talk for several episodes, with her whole gritty experience at Harrenhal being watered down. I didn't give my opinion not because I am too "uninteresting" according to you, I just didn't give it because I'm not trying to fight about specific viewpoints of Arya's arc, Jon's, Dany's, whatever. And did I say that my opinion was fact? I'm trying to find the quote "my opinion is fact," but I'm at a loss. If you're referring to Daisy, I can probably safely say that most viewers don't know her name or even remember her, let alone care about her character. I was just giving my opinion that overall I wasn't impressed with the interview. Is that ok with you?

Careful there. God forbid you express dissatisfaction with how the show's being run.