Why did they feel the need to change so much in TV for Season 2?

[Nezzer]

I didn't like seeing Jaime killing his cousin as much as any of you, but I don't think it's really out of character for Jaime before losing his hand. This kinslaying thing is just another creation of that society, with their false morality that Jaime despised. Before losing his hand, the only things he cared about was himself and Cersei. Not even his children he cared about. The only reason I dislike that scene is because it was unnecessary. I can see Jaime killing a cousin, but not without reason. He could have just told him to fake his death.

[GoodGuyA]

This kinslaying thing is just another creation of that society, with their false morality that Jaime despised.

So much this. Seriously guys. Who was he closer to, Alton or King Aerys? While the King may have been Mad, Jamie knew him probably better than he knew his own father. He understood Aerys' mind and his intention, and saw no rationality for it. In such dire straights, why is it so infeasible that he would stoop to using someone for his own purposes when his mind is taken by the idea of continuing his own life? I never saw this as so grossly out of character, and the justification we keep bringing up is just straight up purist talk. I understand it more when people Jamie liked to be admired, but "He wouldn't be a kinslayer" is straight up lying to yourselves. What the hell is a distant cousin to him? He cares only for his immediate family out of any people in the whole world. We know he was about broken by this point, as demonstrated by him spilling the beans to Cat. The whole talk just angers me in its misreading of the character...

They certainly did a bit of a wonky thing with Jamie's story, but the colliding of elements all at once did well in creating a genuine tension which reflected the other avenues of the storyling, and hopefully will affect Jamie's going forward.

[Khal Porno]

I don't recall a moment in the books where Jaime said anything about "kinslaying" (groan) in such a way that revealed any contempt for the practice, or that he agreed that it was an especially egregious sin. I think this idea that he would never do such a thing comes out of the hardcore fans' own desire for Jaime to be a good guy. We already know that he (at that point in his character development) had no compunctions about killing an 8 year old child for his own gain, why would he bat an eye at killing an obscure cousin if it meant his escape from imprisonment?

[Jaime's Wench]

I didn't like seeing Jaime killing his cousin as much as any of you, but I don't think it's really out of character for Jaime before losing his hand. This kinslaying thing is just another creation of that society, with their false morality that Jaime despised. Before losing his hand, the only things he cared about was himself and Cersei. Not even his children he cared about. The only reason I dislike that scene is because it was unnecessary. I can see Jaime killing a cousin, but not without reason. He could have just told him to fake his death.

I think your under-valuing Jaime's sense of right and wrong. We believe he has no sense, because of how he threw Bran from a window, but even GRRM has said that the choice would be a tough one to call for most people. He does care about others; we see him care for Tyrion, we see him quite quickly begin to care about Brienne, we see him care for Sansa's fate. This doesn't naturally spring from losing his sword hand.

[Aerys Blackfyre]

too much things, too less time, so cut cut cut

it's the same in LOTR, and in many on-screen adaptations

[Valyrian_Goddess]

I think you're in the wrong section here~

Can we stop being forum snobs?

[Brandon Martell]

too much things, too less time, so cut cut cut

it's the same in LOTR, and in many on-screen adaptations

First season was managed perfectly that still delivered the story just like the book. Second season they weren't just cutting, but also adding a lot. They were cutting many of the really awesome events in CoK and replacing them with boring endings. Non-book viewers think season two was too slow-paced. When they remove Jon's epic adventures and fights against the Wildlings (except one fight), Weasel Soup, and Ramsay attacking Winterfell, that will definitely make it slow-paced.

Think about it in terms of POVs, the only POVs that got their climax were the three Blackwater POVs, Catelyn (which isn't much anyway), and you may consider Bran (even the Reeds - his main story - were postponed).

They were doing time management in season one. The changes in season two weren't time management. Jon was spending a lot of time with Ygritte, time he could've spent fighting with badass Qhorin. The change in Arya's story was good, but they still should've used some of that time on Weasel Soup, which is much more fun that watching Arya trying to avoid LF or stealing a letter.

I support removing the Reeds for time constraints and to have Bran material for season 3, but I was really mad about Theon's ending. That was just very confusing to non-book readers and removed a really exciting (not in a good way) moment in CoK.

Changing Dany's story was a good idea because her story was really slow-paced and barely had anything in CoK, but it was just very poor writing that barely made any sense. I seriously couldn't stand watching it until they stole Dany's dragons. Dany threatens the lives of her entire khalasar because she refuses to open a box at the gates of Qarth.

[Khal Porno]

Ramsay attacking Winterfell?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that happen "off-screen" in the book?

[Toth]

Ramsay attacking Winterfell?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that happen "off-screen" in the book?

As far as I remember, Theon watched the battle from above, standing on Winterfell's wall. He opened the gate for the successfull Ramsay, who explained him what happened, knocks him down and orders his troops to sack the castle. Only the last part would have been reasonable to show in the series, but even then I must admit that it wasn't necessary.

I admit, that I waited long for the Reeds, but putting them to season 3 was definitely not a mistake. They just need a good explanation for the Reeds to delay their arrival (war, Jojen's health, Boltons, for example) or why they were able to track their route to the north (greensight, Meera's pathfinder-abilities). It is quite difficult to make a botch of that :)

Regarding the other changes... I have to state that I came to ASOIAF through watching the first season and read the books afterwards. The first season was terrific, even if the first book was only character exposure. The second season is still absolutely great and I seem to have much less problems with it, than others. I like several of the changes for their intention, but they screwed crucial parts of the story. :bang:

At first, Arya: I understand that they wanted to spare Maisie some of the horrible experiences Arya had to make. The "siege" of the small holdfast with Yoren would have been too expensive, ok, three or so kills away from Arya. Yoren's sacrifice was still badass (even when he should have dragged more Lannisters down to hell :D). After that came Harrenhal. Tywin immediatly rescuing Gendry from the Tickling and Arya from Weese was weird. Especially since her experiences as a "slave", working, betrayed and beaten by Weese, makes her forget to name Tywin to Jaqen. She murders for self-defense and had no real time to think what was best for her freedom in the long distance. I know, it's pretty tough to see a 9 year old girl getting beaten in a TV-show but her extreme suffrance was it that makes her the Arya we bookreader love, pity and fear in the same instance. Even then, I don't understand why they took her last kill at Harrenhal. They could have let Arya waste her third kill way earlier, Jaqen leaving and giving her the coin inside. In the book, there was only one guard present, so why were there more in the show that needed to get killed by Jaqen in a gruesome way? Arya's last kill out of desperation and improvisation would have been a key moment, even if it would have to be a Lannister, not one of Robb's Northman. And killing the Tickler early on was the worst thing I can imagine to Arya's storyline. It is the only person of her list she was able to kill herself, and it was horribly satisfying for her. I don't know how they want to bend that back...

Second, Talisa: Yeah... I've never been a fan of Jeyne. I think she totally lacks of personality. A plot device on legs, only there to give GRRM a reason to kill off Robb. So I liked that they wanted to show a romance. It was still not reasonable at all but it's not as bad as Cat's and Jaimes scenes. Seriously, were they drunk, when they wrote this stuff? I say that not only because I really liked Cleos Frey and expected him to be some kind of comic relief for Jaime and Brienne. It was just too contradicting. Jaime has proven in his cell that he has no sense of honor or justice at all, but Cat is still freeing him, without getting mad by grieve for her boys? I think nobody in the whole audience bought it. Especially since they've cut out every sign of madness she developed in the book (her hysterical laughter after facing Bran's assassin, you know). This would have been the perfect point of forshadowing and explaining at the same time. They missed it. Royally. As royally as King Joffrey, the hare-hunter.

To Dany: Ugh. Here, I understand the need for changing stuff totally. I like to complain, but here I empathize with the screenwriters. She did almost nothing in ACOK, until House of Undying. But they exchanged Dany doing nothing with Dany endlessly complaining about her stolen dragons and annoying everyone in the audience. My solution would have been more radical. I would have cut her out. It is a bold step, I know, but I would have shown her in the first episode in the Red Waste, somewhere in the middle arriving at Qarth and in the last one burning down the HoU. Or stretching the House into two episodes, buying more CGI-prophecies (unlike D&D, I think debating that stuff keeps the audience attentive for further seasons) for the money I would have saved for cutting out the fist. I know, the three blows gave me goosebumps, but I would have gotten the same goosebumps in the extremely budget-friendly scene, GRRM wrote with the prologue of ASOS. D&D-version was cool, but the only new thing we know now, is that White Walkers are too lazy to saddle down to kill a fat guy sitting in the snow. Seriously, there was no reason for him to spare Sam in the book, so it makes no sense at all that he does in the show.

Puh... Nerdrage end...

[Nezzer]

I think your under-valuing Jaime's sense of right and wrong. We believe he has no sense, because of how he threw Bran from a window, but even GRRM has said that the choice would be a tough one to call for most people. He does care about others; we see him care for Tyrion, we see him quite quickly begin to care about Brienne, we see him care for Sansa's fate. This doesn't naturally spring from losing his sword hand.

It's not about right or wrong. Kinslaying is just another taboo of that hypocritical society. Jaime knows that and he hates that society and all its silliness. So I don't see the two-handed Jaime caring about kinslaying as much as caring about chivalry, oaths and "honorable" stuff like that. I think too many people here have adopted the beliefs of the silly Westerosi society :cool4:

[Jaime's Wench]

It's not about right or wrong. Kinslaying is just another taboo of that hypocritical society. Jaime knows that and he hates that society and all its silliness. So I don't see the two-handed Jaime caring about kinslaying as much as caring about chivalry, oaths and "honorable" stuff like that. I think too many people here have adopted the beliefs of the silly Westerosi society :cool4:

He knows the beliefs are silly, which is why he does not follow them. His code of honour and duty is not the same as Westeros'.Throughout Robert's reign, he saw himself as the member of the kingsguard responsible for protecting the queen. This is how he fit his duty to Cersei in with his duty to the KG. This means he would kill to protect Cersei, but he wouldn't kill for his own selfish reasons. As for kinslaying, Tywin taught him the importance of family. He hated the idea that Tyrion might have killed Joffrey, not because Joffrey was his son (he said Joffrey deserved to die!) but because of the fact that Tyrion would be a kinslayer. He similarly resents Tyrion when he realises he killed Tywin. This is why he would not kill his cousin for the off-chance of his own personal gain.

[Golden Lion]

I really didn't understanding freeing Jaimie before the sack of winterfell.

It undermines the motivations of several characters. And their new motivations are so fickle and weak.

Why couldn't they have done the sack of winterfell, then had Cat free Jaimie? Their motivations would have stayed in tact and all the following scenes could still have happened but made much more sense, plus you'd get a lot more grief from the actors so you can actually understand their actions.

It just bugs me that they changed that for no real reason.

At least with Dany getting her dragons stolen you can understand that they are inventing some plot for her because her Qarth journey is largely dull before the House of the undying.

[Brandon Martell]

Why couldn't they have done the sack of winterfell, then had Cat free Jaimie? Their motivations would have stayed in tact and all the following scenes could still have happened but made much more sense, plus you'd get a lot more grief from the actors so you can actually understand their actions.

Not really about the sack. It's about Theon killing all the ravens and not sending word for everyone that Bran and Rickon are dead.

As far as I remember, Theon watched the battle from above, standing on Winterfell's wall. He opened the gate for the successfull Ramsay, who explained him what happened, knocks him down and orders his troops to sack the castle. Only the last part would have been reasonable to show in the series, but even then I must admit that it wasn't necessary.

Why would only the last part be reasonable to show? They could've showed the whole thing and I don't see why they wouldn't. That was one of the biggest scenes in CoK and it was necessary.

[Nezzer]

He knows the beliefs are silly, which is why he does not follow them. His code of honour and duty is not the same as Westeros'.Throughout Robert's reign, he saw himself as the member of the kingsguard responsible for protecting the queen. This is how he fit his duty to Cersei in with his duty to the KG. This means he would kill to protect Cersei, but he wouldn't kill for his own selfish reasons. As for kinslaying, Tywin taught him the importance of family. He hated the idea that Tyrion might have killed Joffrey, not because Joffrey was his son (he said Joffrey deserved to die!) but because of the fact that Tyrion would be a kinslayer. He similarly resents Tyrion when he realises he killed Tywin. This is why he would not kill his cousin for the off-chance of his own personal gain.

Mayhaps he didn't want Tyrion to bear a dishonorable stain like Jaime does. And I agree with you that killing a cousin like that to escape was stupid, like I said before, but not because it's a cousin, but because he didn't need to kill anyone to attempt an escape. I still believe it'd make no difference to Jaime if Alton was a cousin or completely unrelated. If killing him was the only way out, he'd kill him. And that's the only reason I dislike that scene: killing the guy, even if he was completely unrelated to Jaime, is pointless and unnecessary for his escape.

[Golden Lion]

Not really about the sack. It's about Theon killing all the ravens and not sending word for everyone that Bran and Rickon are dead.

I know, but that was invented to explain delaying the reaction. When in COK Theon didn't do that because they're roaming wild in the Godswood later on.

They had no business removing their motivations for marrying Jeyne and freeing Jaimie.

[Toth]

Why would only the last part be reasonable to show? They could've showed the whole thing and I don't see why they wouldn't. That was one of the biggest scenes in CoK and it was necessary.

You say it yourself. It was one of the biggest scenes, but as far as I see it the least biggest of them. It was clear that Blackwater ate a lot of money. The three blows and HoU, too. Not to mention paychecks for all the new castmembers on Dragonstone and Harrenhal and the North and Qarth and the Iron Isles. Additionally, they decided to cast and introduce Ramsay in season 3 for reasons of budget and screentime. It makes no sense to spend even more money on a minor battle, which could also be mentioned offscreen. Ramsay must have attacked in the series, nevertheless. Thirty odd Ironmen are not able to sack the city and Ramsay doesn't need another reason than cause havoc. He was an outlaw at that time in the book, they must only mention his crimes later on and the auditience will get his reasons to desintegrate Robb's kingdom for his life and his name. Without Ramsay, it would be pointless to do show it, though.

[Brandon Martell]

You say it yourself. It was one of the biggest scenes, but as far as I see it the least biggest of them. It was clear that Blackwater ate a lot of money. The three blows and HoU, too. Not to mention paychecks for all the new castmembers on Dragonstone and Harrenhal and the North and Qarth and the Iron Isles. Additionally, they decided to cast and introduce Ramsay in season 3 for reasons of budget and screentime. It makes no sense to spend even more money on a minor battle, which could also be mentioned offscreen. Ramsay must have attacked in the series, nevertheless. Thirty odd Ironmen are not able to sack the city and Ramsay doesn't need another reason than cause havoc. He was an outlaw at that time in the book, they must only mention his crimes later on and the auditience will get his reasons to desintegrate Robb's kingdom for his life and his name. Without Ramsay, it would be pointless to do show it, though.

It doesn't really take that much budget. All they need is a good massacre scene with 10-20 people and Ramsay entering into Winterfell and attacking Theon. The amount of money that would take is around the same as the throne room massacre in season 1 combined with the king's entrance into Winterfell. It's not much, just a few kills and Ramsay riding into Winterfell. They don't need to show them burning it.

And Ramsay would've gotten as much screentime as Charles Dance did back in season 1. Casting Ramsay is way more important than casting Roose Bolton, since he does nothing in season 2.

[King Tommen]

It doesn't really take that much budget. All they need is a good massacre scene with 10-20 people and Ramsay entering into Winterfell and attacking Theon. The amount of money that would take is around the same as the throne room massacre in season 1 combined with the king's entrance into Winterfell. It's not much, just a few kills and Ramsay riding into Winterfell. They don't need to show them burning it.

And Ramsay would've gotten as much screentime as Charles Dance did back in season 1. Casting Ramsay is way more important than casting Roose Bolton, since he does nothing in season 2.

Is it not pretty obvious that they are intentionally delaying the introduction of Ramsay because they don't want the audience to know what really happened at Winterfell? Ramsay and Roose are too closely linked (on account of Roose urging Robb to allow his son to save his brothers) that they can't show Ramsay being completely evil without directly implicating Roose and putting the audience on his scent prior to the RW.

I think it's pretty clear that Ramsay isn't going to reveal himself to Theon this season for quite a while (which is why Iwan Rheon was cast simply as "boy") and they are going to misdirect the audience as to the events at Winterfell until much closer to the RW to pull off the reveals of both Ramsay and Roose.

And contrary to some here, I think there very well might be a reason why they didn't allow the word on Bran and Rickon's "deaths" to get out last season. I think that there's a chance that one of the reasons that Ramsay will be undercover as "boy" in prison with Theon is to determine exactly what happened to Bran and Rickon. He wasn't part of the burning boys plot as "Reek" was in the books so him getting that information is necessary. If it's ambiguous as to what happened with the boys, then he has reason to attempt to get that info from Theon (either by deception or torture).

Now maybe that's not going to happen but the show went out of its way to show them killing the ravens and demonstrating that no word got out about the boys so I would assume there was a reason that would become more clear in Season 3.

Fans who say there was "no good reason" for Robb and Cat not to get the news on Bran and Rickon should probably reserve judgement because we probably will get a reason this season. At that time, you can debate if it was a good one or not but it's premature to make that assumption because we haven't seen the full arc play out.

[Brandon Martell]

Fans who say there was "no good reason" for Robb and Cat not to get the news on Bran and Rickon should probably reserve judgement because we probably will get a reason this season. At that time, you can debate if it was a good one or not but it's premature to make that assumption because we haven't seen the full arc play out.

I agree on this point. I don't know how they'll manage Robb's reaction to Bran and Rickon's deaths now.

[Le Cygne]

Even if we ignore all the evidence in the text that shows it's out of character for Jaime to kill his cousin, why make him a kinslayer on the show?