Season 1 compared to Season 2.

[JoePescisBoss]

as an adaptation of the books season 1 was better

as a piece of tv season 2 was better

No! I saw the first two seasons before reading the books.

When I saw s1, I thought this might be even better than "The Wire" or "Breaking Bad", after I saw s2 I didnt think so. Im just hoping that s3 will be even better than s1. Everybody who has read SoS says so.

[Grand Moff Mithrandir]

as an adaptation of the books season 1 was better

as a piece of tv season 2 was better

I watched both seasons before I read the books, and I have to say that season2 felt tedious(The Arya/Tywin fiasco) at times, where as season1 was(to me) groundbreaking television..not since Rome have I been so hooked on a TV series. :leaving:

[locke and key]

I watched both seasons before I read the books, and I have to say that season2 felt tedious(The Arya/Tywin fiasco) at times, where as season1 was(to me) groundbreaking television..not since Rome have I been so hooked on a TV series. :leaving:

No! I saw the first two seasons before reading the books.

When I saw s1, I thought this might be even better than "The Wire" or "Breaking Bad", after I saw s2 I didnt think so. Im just hoping that s3 will be even better than s1. Everybody who has read SoS says so.

This is from wikipedia:

Reviewing the first season, critics noted the high production values, the well-realized world, compelling characters, and particularly the performance of the child actors.^[77][78] The first season of Game of Thrones scored a Metacritic average of 79 out of 100 based on 28 critic reviews, categorized as "generally favorable".^[79] Variety wrote that "there may be no show more profitable to its network than 'Game of Thrones' is to HBO. Fully produced by the pay cabler and already a global phenomenon after only one season, the fantasy skein was a gamble that has paid off handsomely."^[80]

The second season was also very well received by critics. It obtained an average Metacritic score of 88 out of 100, which the website considers "universal acclaim".^[81] Entertainment Weekly praised the "vivid, vital, and just plain fun" storytelling,^[82] and The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the show made a "strong case for being one of TV's best series", its gravitas making it the only genre show dramatically comparable to shows such as Mad Men or Breaking Bad.^[83] The New York Times published the only mixed review, disapproving of the characters' lack of complexity and their confusing multitude, as well as the meandering plot.^[84]

[Joyful Union]

I watched both seasons before I read the books, and I have to say that season2 felt tedious(The Arya/Tywin fiasco) at times, where as season1 was(to me) groundbreaking television..not since Rome have I been so hooked on a TV series. :leaving:

If you thought that the Arya Tywin scenes were a fiasco, you are truly lost.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

Considering you had never read the books and didn't know that Arya was never Tywin's cup-bearer, I'm curious as to how you could call it a fiasco. Even assuming you had read the books, like I did, how you can't appreciate two great actors (One exceptionally good) exchanging some very well written dialogue is beyond me.

[locke and key]

If you thought that the Arya Tywin scenes were a fiasco, you are truly lost.

Completely agree they were some of the best scenes of the season

[JoePescisBoss]

This is from wikipedia:

Reviewing the first season, critics noted the high production values, the well-realized world, compelling characters, and particularly the performance of the child actors.^[77][78] The first season of Game of Thrones scored a Metacritic average of 79 out of 100 based on 28 critic reviews, categorized as "generally favorable".^[79] Variety wrote that "there may be no show more profitable to its network than 'Game of Thrones' is to HBO. Fully produced by the pay cabler and already a global phenomenon after only one season, the fantasy skein was a gamble that has paid off handsomely."^[80]

The second season was also very well received by critics. It obtained an average Metacritic score of 88 out of 100, which the website considers "universal acclaim".^[81] Entertainment Weekly praised the "vivid, vital, and just plain fun" storytelling,^[82] and The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the show made a "strong case for being one of TV's best series", its gravitas making it the only genre show dramatically comparable to shows such as Mad Men or Breaking Bad.^[83] The New York Times published the only mixed review, disapproving of the characters' lack of complexity and their confusing multitude, as well as the meandering plot.^[84]

I dont trust Critics anymore.They dont seem to have an own opinion. If someone who they respect says that sth is good, then it must be good.

In this case they saw the immense love for this show everywhere, so its no wonder s2 got a better rating than s1. They saw everything in a more positive light.

[JoePescisBoss]

I watched both seasons before I read the books, and I have to say that season2 felt tedious(The Arya/Tywin fiasco) at times, where as season1 was(to me) groundbreaking television..not since Rome have I been so hooked on a TV series. :leaving:

Cmon, Arya and Tywin was some of the best part in the show.

[Grand Moff Mithrandir]

Considering you had never read the books and didn't know that Arya was never Tywin's cup-bearer, I'm curious as to how you could call it a fiasco. Even assuming you had read the books, like I did, how you can't appreciate two great actors (One exceptionally good) exchanging some very well written dialogue is beyond me.

If you thought that the Arya Tywin scenes were a fiasco, you are truly lost.

I'm not saying the acting was bad (heck I enjoyed their Aegon the conqueror/Rhaenys/Visenya convo more than the next guy) I just couldn't see the point off it all, was any of it of any consequence?..now having read the books it frustrates me even more, because they skipped a vital part in Arya's arc(the verbal/physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Weese and Pinkeye) that define what she will become.

What i'm basically saying is sure season2 had some good acting & dialogue(ie Charles Dance) but season1 with its "average" acting/dialogue was more entertaining.

[Grand Moff Mithrandir]

I dont trust Critics anymore.They dont seem to have an own opinion. If someone who they respect says that sth is good, then it must be good.

In this case they saw the immense love for this show everywhere, so its no wonder s2 got a better rating than s1. They saw everything in a more positive light.

:agree: and that's how I think most fans of the show are, how can you claim to be a fan of the ASOIAF series(which deviates from the norms) but still prefer season2(Which is way too uh.."mainstream") over season1? Cmon! :bang:

[Pinkie Baelish]

Before I read the books, I definitely considered Season 2 to be better. Come at me, book purists. But reading the books definitely killed my appreciation of season 2. While I definitely think some of the changes were a mistake, I loved other changes. For me, personally, I don't really mind changes as long as they aren't too big and the plot is still engrossing.

The main reason season 2 isn't as good is because A Clash of Kings is simply not as tightly focused or well-structured as A Game of Thrones, and is much harder to adapt in 10 episodes.

There, I fixed it for you.

[locke and key]

:agree: and that's how I think most fans of the show are, how can you claim to be a fan of the ASOIAF series(which deviates from the norms) but still prefer season2(Which is way too uh.."mainstream") over season1? Cmon! :bang:

because I don't expect the tv show to be exactly the same as the book, also I'd say season 1 is more mainstream, One main lead ned, with lots of other characters aroud him and then 2 sidestories Jon on the wall and dany, season 2 is more different to other tv shows in that the only real sort of character who's storyline gets more screentime is tyrions, everyone else gets equal-ish billing

[kevin1989]

because I don't expect the tv show to be exactly the same as the book, also I'd say season 1 is more mainstream, One main lead ned, with lots of other characters aroud him and then 2 sidestories Jon on the wall and dany, season 2 is more different to other tv shows in that the only real sort of character who's storyline gets more screentime is tyrions, everyone else gets equal-ish billing

That last is not true, the things they tried in season 2 is really mainstream. Dragons that got stolen (kidnapping), the beginning of the ygritte/jon story for instance are 2 things that you see very often in shows, GRRM tried to avoid such things in his books. Not saying that season 2 is bad, or worst than season 1. In fact I found them both better at different things. Season 1: writing, character development. Season 2: Visually.

Personally I think that season 2 would be better if the episodes were structure better. Season 1 was great because they looked at it as a whole. For instance arya and sansa, some episodes they were in but not important, you saw them in 1 scene with sean bean. Every episode was focused on 1 person. You saw a change in many character in every episode. Season 2 was more of "every episode needs every character", I know that Danny wasn't in 2 episodes, but did she really needed 8 episodes? Why not bring her story in 6 episodes? first in red waste. second redwaste going to qarth. third beginning of qarth story. fourth middle of qarth story. Fifth house of undying.

If they structured the episodes better the season would have been better, not every character needs to be in every episodes. (look at lost sometimes we didn't see a character for 5/6 episodes). Or at least show a person longer on screen. What I liked in season 1 was that for instance episode 3, that Danny is important in the second half of the episode, in season 2 they tried short scenes, where a character is seen in the first 15 minutes, a time in the middle of the episode and in the last 10 minutes.

but then again, asoiaf is a difficult story to tell on screen, lots happened.

[locke and key]

From reading this thread, It seems to me that the main reason people have for disliking season 2 is because they thought it deviated too much from the book and/or it was too dis-jointed

For the first point although there were some bad choices made in the way they adapted it I think that we can't criticise the fact that they changed things as the tv show and the book are different things and It wasn't a case of D+D completely ignoring what GRRM wrote and going mad with power but them making the decisions they think are best for their show

The second point is more vaild but thats a proble that's naturally gonna happen when adapting ACOK which is in general a more disjointed book.

Personally, I thought that season 2 was better than season 1 as although it made some more obvious mistakes in general The story was more entertaining as it wasn't so ned centered

However, ultimately this whole thread is subjective and everyone's gonna have a different opinion, Plus i think also theres this case of judging it as an adaptation of the books and not necesarily as a show itself

[Keeper-of-the-Old-Ways]

The big problem with Season 2 for me was the jumbled nature of it all. It felt as if they were trying to cram as much as possible into each episode, and as such, the show suffered for it. Scenes seem to be cut-off, they just begin and end. The transitions don't feel fluid and natural, but awkward and forced. There's barely enough time to develop and establish tension. They ignore natural dialogue, clever storytelling devices and cinematic movements and seem to favour just...cutting to another scenes whether there's a climax to the previous moment or not.

The birth of Stannis' shadow and the death of Renly are a good example of this. The scene between Davos and Melisandre feels as if it's a power point banging out the essential details. Bang (pregnancy) Bang (birth) Bang \(Unholy monster). And then we move onto Renly's demise and we're given this wrong-footed, awkward scene in his tenet and then (bang-bang-bang) he's dead. It just...happens. Lady's death in the first season had more impact. You can see it again at the King's Landing riot as well, we have all this chaos, Sansa is in danger, tension should be mounting and then...oh, it's over.

The first couple of episodes and the finale were the worst offenders. The last episode honestly just feels like two-dozen scenes just tossed together. It actually gives the impression that nothing is happening. The weight simply isn't there. It comes across as dramatically lacking.

[Golden Lion]

I thought season 1 was better because all of the character's seemed like they had a better portion of quality story.

The only strands in season 2 that had decent enough story was KL and Haranhall (Theon, debatable).

The Night's Watch stuff was terrible, the Dany stuff started great and then as soon as we go to Qarth - flat lined, the Stannis stuff was never going to do well anyway, and the Stark stuff was another mess.

I think for season 3 they need to do at least another full episode just set in one location like Blackwater.

Book 2 is a bit lax in ways of having lots of action, but I still think it could have been adapted better without making so many unnecessary plot changes like making Catelyn unaware of the death of her sons but free Jaime anyway.

Book 3 has a lot more action, so I'm hoping this means they won't fuck around with the structure and plot too much or cram it with filler.

[locke and key]

I thought season 1 was better because all of the character's seemed like they had a better portion of quality story. although I agree about the quality for each storyline differed more actually think the portioning was better this season as I felt often that season 1 was just the ned, dany, Jon and winterfell show

The only strands in season 2 that had decent enough story was KL and Haranhall (Theon, debatable).

The Night's Watch stuff was terrible, the Dany stuff started great and then as soon as we go to Qarth - flat lined, the Stannis stuff was never going to do well anyway, and the Stark stuff was another mess.For me the NW stuff was some of the best although crasters was a little weak I thought it actually perked up quite a lot with the introduction of the wilidngs and qhorin halfhand and I though that the cliffhanger ending with the others was excellent. Dany I think was terrible as a whole, and although I think they got the shadow bit wrong I thought they nailed the characters of stannis, davos and Mel and the tension between them excellently and One of my favourite created scenes was the one in the finale where we saw a more human stannis than the cold justice concerned stannis we normally see

I think for season 3 they need to do at least another full episode just set in one location like Blackwater. Whilst the blackwater episode was excellent, it worked cos there is so much material at the blackwater to adapt, there's not really any other event in ASOS which could have a whole episode set there, Even the RW has only one chapter written on it, i guess they could do this with battle of castle balck later on but that doesn't work in the same way as the blackwater as it's more of siege happening over a prolonged time period than, one overnight battle, however I do agree we don't neeed to see every setting in one episode

Book 2 is a bit lax in ways of having lots of action, but I still think it could have been adapted better without making so many unnecessary plot changes like making Catelyn unaware of the death of her sons but free Jaime anyway.Hmm, I personally think this did work quite well as instead of freeing jaime because of the news about bran and Rickon she did it becaause she had been manipulated into doing it by LF at renly's camp and I think this was a good showcase of how manipulative LF can be.

Book 3 has a lot more action, so I'm hoping this means they won't fuck around with the structure and plot too much or cram it with filler.

[kevin1989]

Just finished season 1 and the first episode of season 2. I have mixed feelings about 2x01. It feels much better than the first season at some points, visually it's beautyful. Some scenes seems powerful, like the burning of the seven gods. (yes I liked the way in the books better, but still its powerful). It's feels better now that they started with Kings Landing, because that way the story with Cercei flows better. There's some good writing in this episode, the only big complain I have is with the scene with Robb and Grey wind. That Grey wind starts walking toward Robb feels very good (because of the warg thing), and that he feels the anger that Robb feels. But the ending feels terrible that grey wind bites toward Jaime, they could have handle that ending better imo.

[JoePescisBoss]

From reading this thread, It seems to me that the main reason people have for disliking season 2 is because they thought it deviated too much from the book and/or it was too dis-jointed

For the first point although there were some bad choices made in the way they adapted it I think that we can't criticise the fact that they changed things as the tv show and the book are different things and It wasn't a case of D+D completely ignoring what GRRM wrote and going mad with power but them making the decisions they think are best for their show

The second point is more vaild but thats a proble that's naturally gonna happen when adapting ACOK which is in general a more disjointed book.

Personally, I thought that season 2 was better than season 1 as although it made some more obvious mistakes in general The story was more entertaining as it wasn't so ned centered

However, ultimately this whole thread is subjective and everyone's gonna have a different opinion, Plus i think also theres this case of judging it as an adaptation of the books and not necesarily as a show itself

Apparently you didnt read my comment. I saw the first two seasons without reading the books. Now Ive finally finished the first book and started the 2nd.

I remember season 1, almost every episodes ending was intense: Bran pushed by Jaime, Ned killing the wolfe and Bran waking up, Littlefinger betraying Ned, Daenerys bringing the dragons back to life and of course the unbeatable: Neds beheading. It took me half an hour of Episode 10 till I believed that he was actually dead. At that point I didnt know that George RR Martin and his books existed, so I couldnt believe a show had the nerves to kill its main character.

The 2nd season didnt have this intensity. I liked Tywin and Aryas "Discussions", which apparently wasnt in the books. But the way they handled that story with Daenerys in Qarth was just weak. It felt like a B-movie when the black guy and the creepy bald guy killed the "13" and then they find him lying with Daenerys friend in bed. Cmon! And then they steal the Dragons but dont prepare that the dragons might actually burn everything down.

If it werent for the first season, I dont think I would have become a fan of this show.

But they truly delivered in the Episode 9 (Blackwater). That one had pretty much everything and is clearly the best one of all 20 episodes.

As a viewer with no knowledge of the books, season 1 was hands down the better one.

[locke and key]

Apparently you didnt read my comment. I saw the first two seasons without reading the books. Now Ive finally finished the first book and started the 2nd.

I remember season 1, almost every episodes ending was intense: Bran pushed by Jaime, Ned killing the wolfe and Bran waking up, Littlefinger betraying Ned, Daenerys bringing the dragons back to life and of course the unbeatable: Neds beheading. It took me half an hour of Episode 10 till I believed that he was actually dead. At that point I didnt know that George RR Martin and his books existed, so I couldnt believe a show had the nerves to kill its main character.

The 2nd season didnt have this intensity. I liked Tywin and Aryas "Discussions", which apparently wasnt in the books. But the way they handled that story with Daenerys in Qarth was just weak. It felt like a B-movie when the black guy and the creepy bald guy killed the "13" and then they find him lying with Daenerys friend in bed. Cmon! And then they steal the Dragons but dont prepare that the dragons might actually burn everything down.

If it werent for the first season, I dont think I would have become a fan of this show.

But they truly delivered in the Episode 9 (Blackwater). That one had pretty much everything and is clearly the best one of all 20 episodes.

As a viewer with no knowledge of the books, season 1 was hands down the better one.

as I said before it's all subjective and having read this comment I can see where you're coming from, Personally, i think I preferred S2 even though it wasn't handled as well in certain places, mainly because I felt that the storyline was more complex than s1 which at Times I felt was Too ned-centered, whereas although sometimes this felt fragmented season 2 overall felt more like it was telling more storys from lots of different characters, which I preferred and felt was a bit more true to the books style with all the different povs.

Hopefully, Season 3 can get just the right balance of the different storys without feeling as dis-jointed as season 2 sometimes did, from the trailers released so far I think it's gonna kick both series asses :drunk: