Cogman Talks Inside Game of Thrones, S3

[protar]

Why does that make a difference? Neither Qarth nor the Crag is close to Volantis. If anything, Jeyne is the character they could have had the most artistic license with, since all of the events involving her were off page in acok.

Unless you think that because both Volantis and Qarth are "exotic" they are sort of the same. In which case the accusations of GRRM promoting orientalism are not unfounded.

Long story short: Why is Jeyne more dear to you than Xaro?

Well as I say I still wouldn't like it but if they did want to sow the seeds of Volantis at this point it would've made sense to do it in Dany's arc, because it's more closely related to her story than anyone else and it wouldn't have been outside the realms of possibility to see a Volantene merchant prince in Qarth. So changing Xaro's origins (which they did anyway.) wouldn't have been as out of place.

But yeah I really don't think they made her Volantene for any reason than "for the lulz." If there is another reason it's probably because they had the hots for Oona Chaplin and she didn't look Westerosi enough.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Well as I say I still wouldn't like it but if they did want to sow the seeds of Volantis at this point it would've made sense to do it in Dany's arc, because it's more closely related to her story than anyone else and it wouldn't have been outside the realms of possibility to see a Volantene merchant prince in Qarth. So changing Xaro's origins (which they did anyway.) wouldn't have been as out of place.

But yeah I really don't think they made her Volantene for any reason than "for the lulz." If there is another reason it's probably because they had the hots for Oona Chaplin and she didn't look Westerosi enough.

You make a lot of assumptions about how and why D&D do certain things, and they always seem to be along the lines of; "D&D probably thought she was hot", or "D&D can't possibly care about [insert anything to do with the source material]", etc.

And yet, for a lot of these changes (not all), there are easily identifiable reasons that actually pertain to their job and the the difficulty of adapting this series. You may think their job is to stick as closely to the books as is possible, but that's not what their job entails at all. Their job is to do the best they can with the time and money they have, and I'd argue that - changes and all - they're doing exactly that.

Making this show is a time consuming, labor intensive, logistical nightmare, and I doubt we'd have seen any other show-runners who could have managed to make this high quality of a show while still sticking as close to the source material as D&D have done.

I only say all of this because I feel like you're constantly attacking and making assumptions about what D&D are doing and why they're doing it, but you don't seem to know much about the actual process of the first point and pretty much nothing about the latter, as evidenced by your belief that their job should be to 'stick as close to the books as possible' (while we're discussing an ultimately irrelevant detail about a minor character, no less).

[protar]

You make a lot of assumptions about how and why D&D do certain things, and they always seem to be along the lines of; "D&D probably thought she was hot", or "D&D can't possibly care about [insert anything to do with the source material]", etc.

And yet, for a lot of these changes (not all), there are easily identifiable reasons that actually pertain to their job and the the difficulty of adapting this series. You may think their job is to stick as closely to the books as is possible, but that's not what their job entails at all. Their job is to do the best they can with the time and money they have, and I'd argue that - changes and all - they're doing exactly that.

Making this show is a time consuming, labor intensive, logistical nightmare, and I doubt we'd have seen any other show-runners who could have managed to make this high quality of a show while still sticking as close to the source material as D&D have done.

I only say all of this because I feel like you're constantly attacking and making assumptions about what D&D are doing and why they're doing it, but you don't seem to know much about the actual process of the first point and pretty much nothing about the latter, as evidenced by your belief that their job should be to 'stick as close to the books as possible' (while we're discussing an ultimately irrelevant detail about a minor character, no less).

But sticking close to the books and making the show work for a wider audience (which I assume is what you mean.) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Things need to be cut and compressed yes, but certainly I see no reason why adding new plot lines and characters is necessary in any way. And I would just like to say that on every occasion where I'm told I "don't understand the processes involved" without fail, no one educates me on these processes, they simply tell me I'm wrong. Not very convincing.

And sure I make assumptions. But as none of us here a privy to D+D's private thoughts we all must make assumptions. For you to say they cast Oona for her acting skills is just as much of an assumption as me saying they chose her because she was hot. However I don't see Oona as a very skilled actress (you may beg to differ.). What I do see is several attractive female cast members being given exorbitant amounts of screen time that their characters weren't given in the books (if they were in the books at all.) along with changes to characterisation that could arguably make them more sexually appealing. Therefore it looks to me like D+D are looking at fanservice potential as a major factor in casting actresses. If you don't agree with me fine, but it's hardly an impossible statement considering shows do it all the time and D+D have outright said they want to cater for perverts.

[Khal-a-bunga]

But sticking close to the books and making the show work for a wider audience (which I assume is what you mean.) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Things need to be cut and compressed yes, but certainly I see no reason why adding new plot lines and characters is necessary in any way. And I would just like to say that on every occasion where I'm told I "don't understand the processes involved" without fail, no one educates me on these processes, they simply tell me I'm wrong. Not very convincing.

And sure I make assumptions. But as none of us here a privy to D+D's private thoughts we all must make assumptions. For you to say they cast Oona for her acting skills is just as much of an assumption as me saying they chose her because she was hot. However I don't see Oona as a very skilled actress (you may beg to differ.). What I do see is several attractive female cast members being given exorbitant amounts of screen time that their characters weren't given in the books (if they were in the books at all.) along with changes to characterisation that could arguably make them more sexually appealing. Therefore it looks to me like D+D are looking at fanservice potential as a major factor in casting actresses. If you don't agree with me fine, but it's hardly an impossible statement considering shows do it all the time and D+D have outright said they want to cater for perverts.

I forgot to mention that you also infer everything they say in the most negative way possible. They never said that their job was to cater to perverts - that's just your bias coming through. And plenty of people here have given explanations for why certain changes were made that do pertain to the process of filmmaking, you just ignore those responses more often than not. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, as I generally enjoy these debates, but it couldn't hurt for you to try and think of things more from their perspective when discussing matters of adaptation.

For instance, you mentioned that sticking as closely to the books as possible and making the show work for a wider audience aren't mutually exclusive, but I would argue that they are in certain respects. A show isn't consumed by its audience the same way a novel is, and when that novel is told exclusively through first-person narrative, the process of adapting it becomes that much more difficult. If you had the time and/or inclination, I'd love to see you tackle how you would have handled the relationship between Robb and Jeyne/Talisa, while taking the writing, casting, costuming, make-up, location and set construction, etc. into consideration. If only because I think it would be a worthwhile exercise for you, not necessarily because I think it would change your opinion on certain things.

Also, what new plot lines have been added (other than, possibly, the arrangement between Ros and Varys that was hinted at in episode 2x10)?

[protar]

I forgot to mention that you also infer everything they say in the most negative way possible. They never said that their job was to cater to perverts - that's just your bias coming through. And plenty of people here have given explanations for why certain changes were made that do pertain to the process of filmmaking, you just ignore those responses more often than not. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, as I generally enjoy these debates, but it couldn't hurt for you to try and think of things more from their perspective when discussing matters of adaptation.

Also, what new plot lines have been added (other than, possibly, the arrangement between Ros and Varys that was hinted at in episode 2x10)?

Well if we're talking about entire narrative threads being entirely created we haven't gotten that bad just yet, but certainly the dragonknapping, every thing with Ros, Talisa, Ygritte, Arya/Tywin etc. etc. is all invented material that cuts in to time that could be used to remain more faithful to the books.

And I don't ignore people's points on the technical aspect of the show, I don't pretend to know anything about production and I'm willing to admit defeat if someone comes up with a perfectly valid logistical reason for a change being made. For instance giving the Hound's story to LF in S1 as a result of constrained filming time. That's a change I disliked but now fully accept because there's a legitimate reason for it. But mostly the responses aren't like that. They're just incredibly vague responses about the logistics of production, like saying there were budgetary constraints when we really don't know how much a certain scene would cost. Or else the changes were based on subjective decisions I don't agree with e.g let's give Ygritte more screen time or we don't think the Jeyne/Robb romance would work on screen.

If you can give me a completely sound logistical explanation for why Jeyne had to become a sassy volantene nurse I will entirely accept her.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Well if we're talking about entire narrative threads being entirely created we haven't gotten that bad just yet, but certainly the dragonknapping, every thing with Ros, Talisa, Ygritte, Arya/Tywin etc. etc. is all invented material that cuts in to time that could be used to remain more faithful to the books.

And I don't ignore people's points on the technical aspect of the show, I don't pretend to know anything about production and I'm willing to admit defeat if someone comes up with a perfectly valid logistical reason for a change being made. For instance giving the Hound's story to LF in S1 as a result of constrained filming time. That's a change I disliked but now fully accept because there's a legitimate reason for it. But mostly the responses aren't like that. They're just incredibly vague responses about the logistics of production, like saying there were budgetary constraints when we really don't know how much a certain scene would cost. Or else the changes were based on subjective decisions I don't agree with e.g let's give Ygritte more screen time or we don't think the Jeyne/Robb romance would work on screen.

If you can give me a completely sound logistical explanation for why Jeyne had to become a sassy volantene nurse I will entirely accept her.

I don't have a reason for Jeyne being switched to Talisa that could come down solely to the logistics of making a television show, but even if I did I wouldn't be using it as a means to get you to change your opinion about her. You don't like her; I do - differing opinions is all that is, and I'm cool with that. But since you're one of the more active posters here, and you help to inspire a lot of debate among many of us who post here, I don't see how you learning a bit more about the process behind all of this could hurt our discussions.

This wikihow article on making a short film is about as bare bones as it gets, as far as the details are concerned, but is a good introduction to the considerations that need to be made for each page of a script that is written -

http://m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Short-Film

Now multiply the complexity and logistics of all of these things exponentially for a show like Game of Thrones, and you should start to get a clearer picture of the way this all works. Who knows, maybe you'll find that this industry is 'your calling', so to speak. You've certainly got the passion for it, it seems.

If you find yourself interested, here are a few more links you can check out to get a better understanding of the process:

http://www.skillset.org/film/business/#

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmmaking#section_1

http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Independent-Film-Road-Movies/Production-Process.html

[protar]

I don't have a reason for Jeyne being switched to Talisa that could come down solely to the logistics of making a television show, but even if I did I wouldn't be using it as a means to get you to change your opinion about her. You don't like her; I do - differing opinions is all that is, and I'm cool with that. But since you're one of the more active posters here, and you help to inspire a lot of debate among many of us who post here, I don't see how you learning a bit more about the process behind all of this could hurt our discussions.

This wikihow article on making a short film is about as bare bones as it gets, as far as the details are concerned, but is a good introduction to the considerations that need to be made for each page of a script that is written -

http://m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Short-Film

Now multiply the complexity and logistics of all of these things exponentially for a show like Game of Thrones, and you should start to get a clearer picture of the way this all works. Who knows, maybe you'll find that this industry is 'your calling', so to speak. You've certainly got the passion for it, it seems.

If you find yourself interested, here are a few more links you can check out to get a better understanding of the process:

http://www.skillset....film/business/#

http://en.m.wikipedi...aking#section_1

http://www.filmrefer...on-Process.html

Why thank you very much, I'll be sure to take a look at that :)

[Clueless Northman]

There's a reason why the whole Talisa subplot is an important change that is far from optimal, but that would probably imply some solid spoilers, and I'm not sure this is the right place to mention them.

Let's just say that it means that, in coming seasons, some (many?) viewers' reactions and opinions about some characters will obviously be different than what they were when people read the books - and will probably be quite different than what GRR Martin intended them to be.

[Khal Porno]

There's a reason why the whole Talisa subplot is an important change that is far from optimal, but that would probably imply some solid spoilers, and I'm not sure this is the right place to mention them.

Let's just say that it means that, in coming seasons, some (many?) viewers' reactions and opinions about some characters will obviously be different than what they were when people read the books - and will probably be quite different than what GRR Martin intended them to be.

Go to the Talisa thread and outline them, I would be interested to hear them - I think I know what you are talking about and I don't particularly agree, but I want to hear your opinion.

[Frumpus]

I think it's safe to say that if the books didn't have a substantial fanbase in the first place to build off, the chances of the show being made are much smaller. And really I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to only make changes when necessary which so far they haven't (whether you like the changes or not most weren't completely necessary.). They keep on harping on about how passionate and resectful of the source material they are, but so far I've seen little to show it.

You need to stop assuming that you know better than the producers when it comes to adaptation. They clearly have budget limitations, actor limitations, etc. They only have ten episodes per season. They cannot recreate ASoIaF perfectly and are doing the best they can. That is why they need to make changes, and if you still don't understand that, well, then you will keep setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Padraig]

How is it unrealistic? My rule is specifically if it's realistic for things to keep to the books it should do. It's the very definition of realistic.

There was two points here. It is unrealistic to expect that adaptations stick very religiously to the source material. GoT is actually a very faithful adapation, so we actually are very lucky. :)

The other point is more interesting IMO. We were debating dropping the Westerling story. Your point was that even if the Westerling story was dropped, Robb's love interest should have remained a Westerosi woman Jeyne, even though without the over-riding Westerling angle, Jeyne's origins are not important. Your point seems to be that, it doesn't matter how important the point is, one must keep faithful to the source material. My point is that D&D look at the big picture. They are trying to explain to the viewer the huge world that GoT is set in. So they could leave Jeyne as another Westerosi woman since it is faithful (imagine faithful in capitals). Or they could change this now unimportant detail (since the Westerling plot is gone) and give the non-reader a chance to learn more about this world. Its all part of condensing material. Helping people understand the world. Using everything available. Having faithfulness trump all these factor is not been realistic.

Jeyne is changed but big picture wise, we now know more about the lands. Does that make sense this time?

And as others have mentioned, there are plenty of non-Westerosi characters in Westeros. There is nothing wrong with another one in Talisa.

Now, you might still think that they did it for the "lolz". But we can all find quotes where D&D talk about how they love the material and how they have tried to be very faithful. So basically, they would completely contradicts your whole argument. Now, we can't force you to change your mind...but it really doesn't seem to have any basis in fact...

As for Oona Chaplin's more exotic look. Jeyne Westerling actualy had an Essos heritage. There was nothing stopping D&D having her be Jeyne Westerling, Westerosi with Essos heritage if they wanted. But as I have said, that adds nothing to the story on its own.

Talisa was introduced to give Robb more screentime, not the other way round. Saying that other women have "exorbitant amounts of screen time" is another exaggeration. Sure Ros has screentime but her scenes had a purpose (and that was to give Theon, LF, Joffrey etc screentime. Not Ros). Using the same female character just saves money. Suggesting that it would be better if Ros was ugly? I don't know what to say about that.

But mostly the responses aren't like that. They're just incredibly vague responses about the logistics of production, like saying there were budgetary constraints when we really don't know how much a certain scene would cost. Or else the changes were based on subjective decisions I don't agree with e.g let's give Ygritte more screen time or we don't think the Jeyne/Robb romance would work on screen.

Heh. :) That's a bit much. There have been some very good explanations of some of the changes made in this thread. The problem is really that you haven't justified why you think changes were made for the worst reason possible. In fact, you seem to be basically saying that you need a written explanation from D&D for every change made. If you don't get it, you are going to assume the worst?

Ygritte got more screentime over Qhorin because her story is more important than Qhorin. Its that simple. People have already mentioned this and you didn't challenge them.

Jeyne/Robb's romance doesn't work because Robb is older. Marrying a woman because he slept with her one time when he was sad would be silly for a twenty-something (even if he is only supposed to be 18 in the show). This was also already mentioned and not challenged.

Tywin got screen-time because its Charles Dance and you don't employ an actor of that calibre and have him do nothing. This is back to the realistic argument.

There's a reason why the whole Talisa subplot is an important change that is far from optimal, but that would probably imply some solid spoilers, and I'm not sure this is the right place to mention them.

Let's just say that it means that, in coming seasons, some (many?) viewers' reactions and opinions about some characters will obviously be different than what they were when people read the books - and will probably be quite different than what GRR Martin intended them to be.

I don't think this is true either. Or only to a small degree.

[DragonAge93]

Padraig, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Protar, you obviously have not seen a lot of books/comics adapted into film/TV. Look at the Hobbit coming out: the work's getting butchered by PJ and his crew by throwing in unnecessary characters and plotlines, like a love story between one of the dwarves and a female elf, who was not present in the book. This is already a major change, something that I don't even think GoT's has experienced, contrary to what you might think.

You say that this is the only GoT adaption we'll get for a long time, so why not enjoy what we get, no matter the differences? We finally get to see Eddard, Jon, Dany, and a living, breathing Westeros. Would you rather have had a 2 hour PG-13 film, as many wanted to do when they approached GRRM?

First and foremost is what makes good TV, not what makes a good adaption. And it's obviously good TV with all the awards and nominations its garnering. And viewers must be loving it, even with the changes, as season 2's finale set an all-time high in ratings for GoT. I want a faithful adaption, too. But I also want a good TV show I can indulge myself with, and GoT gives me both, even with the changes. We always tell you this and give you quotes and proof, but you seem to just discard it and repeat your same complaints. D&D love the source material, if they didn't, why the hell would they be out right now working their asses off trying to bring this story to the screen? They need to make changes because it's TV. Nothing can be word-for-word. ACoK was more complex and twisting than AGoT, which was relatively more light and had a more central character in Ned that it can focus on for season 1. With season 2, we had 3-4 different storylines, sometimes more, that had to jump around. It can't be extremely faithful, since there are only 10 episodes to tell the center of the story. I also don't see your outright concern over Jeyne's alteration. Such a minor character (thus far in the books) has been altered to fit the Robb in the show, who we probably won't see a lot of except for two-three episodes next season, and you despise her because she's "spunky" and stands up to Robb? I guess you hate Arya then, too, for never doing what she is told and not following the status quo. She had to amputate a man's leg over a, in her view, pointless war, so she was a little on-edge during that first meeting with Robb. You can later see as she gets to know him she starts respecting him more and apologizing for things.

And this is all that really matters: the main story. We got that in season 2: the War of Five Kings escalating, culminating in Blackwater, like in the books. Dany went to Qarth and is now leaving Qarth, per the books. Jon has joined the Wildlings like in the books. Arya has left Harrenhal and on her way to Catelyn, sans the books. Jaime and Brienne are on their way to King's Landing like in the books. They stuck true to the main story points of each character, but had to make changes along the way to make it more interesting for TV. Dany's Qarth story in ACoK is weak, many will agree, and although some hated it in the show, it did bring out shock in the audience, to both non-book readers and some book-readers alike. Same with Jon's storyline. They had him spend more time with Ygritte to establish their relationship and to get the audience more acquainted with her next season, instead of focusing on Qhorin who would be dead in a few episodes. Yeah, you'll say "This is why they should've focused on Qhorin, he dies by the end so give him screen time". Well, that's not how it can work in TV. It could, but I see the reason D&D wanted the change.

You are a lover of the books, I respect that and I can understand why some of the changes might irritate you. But GRRM, the author of yours and our beloved series, loves the series, as he has stated numerous times, and even goes to conventions like Comic-Con to support the show, and loves the cast and the work they put in. Near the end of this recent interview you'll see the praise GRRM gives the show:http://www.adriasnew...-interview.html. Here's the excerpt:

Do you like the TV show?

Yes, I love the TV show! I love nearly everything on the HBO, which is, for me, the Tiffany’s of the television. And I am really involved on the series. In fact, I write the script of one chapter for season.

Won’t you like to write more than one chapter or to be there during the shooting?

Yes, but unfortunately the day has only 24 hours and there are people who think I am quite slowly in my writing, so if I moved to Belfast to participate more actively in the TV series, I would need more time to finish the novels, and I think no one would be interested on this.

Yes. You have time and budget limitations…

For this reason we have to lose things, but I am very happy about the adaptation of the books and I am also very happy to the original scenes David and Dan have added to the show although there is no point of view for them in the books; scenes such as the one in which Cersei and Robert were discussing their marriage or the one between Varys and Littlefinger. The things I am less happy about are the omitted scenes, especially those of them which were, for me, central scenes, but we can’t do anything. I have to write the books, that’s the most important thing for me and I don’t want them to catch me up.

Which of the performances do you like the most?

I like almost all of them. We have an extraordinary cast and Nina Gold, the casting director, is amazing. Certainly Peter Dinklage as Tyrion has achieved a lot of recognition: an Emmy award, a Golden Globe award... all very well deserved.

And now he has been nominated again for the Emmy Award…

Yes, and I am so happy with that, but I feel a little bit disappointed because although we have received a lot of nominations, they are principally in the technical categories, and I think we have very great performances with Sean Bean (Eddard), Mark Addy (King Robert) and Harry Lloyd (Viserys) in the first season, which all of them were marvelous. But the kids are also incredible: Maisie Williams (Arya), Sophie Turner (Sansa)... Lena Headey is a marvelous Cersei and Conleth Hill, as Varys, is incredible too... I think we should have received more nominations in the artistic fields.

I know we all have our opinions, but sometimes you have to be understanding in the making of this show, and while you can hate aspects of it, at least try to understand there are reasons other than "Let's do it for the hell of it!" I guess that's the part that infuriates me, your ignorance to how adapting this show works. I don't mean to sound rude, and you do spark interesting debates, but please, just look at the bigger picture, and not the tiny, insubstantial detail that shouldn't subtract from the epicness of the show.

[protar]

You need to stop assuming that you know better than the producers when it comes to adaptation. They clearly have budget limitations, actor limitations, etc. They only have ten episodes per season. They cannot recreate ASoIaF perfectly and are doing the best they can. That is why they need to make changes, and if you still don't understand that, well, then you will keep setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't assume I know more on production than them. That doesn't mean I can't question their decisions or complain about them. D+D are not gods, they are human and perfectly capable of making mistakes. For you to assume that D+D know what they're doing when it comes to adaptation is just as groundless as me assuming they know nothing (jon snow :P). Both are valid opinions.

Again, pressed for time so I'll answer all the much longer posts later on.

[boojam]

What adaptations do you feel are more true to the source material than Game of Thrones? I'm curious because I don't think I've ever seen anything hue so close, especially on this scale.

Whenever I see this asked I like to note that there have been indeed many works of prose that have had excellent translations to the screen , everything the 1937 Wuthering Heights to the recent True Grit .... many , many.

Just to take one example, Rudyard Kipling's The Man who would be King (1975) adapted by John Huston and Gladys Hill staring Sean Connery and Michael Caine.

(Huston was a genius at adaptations.)

The Kipling story , excellent as it is, is way too short for a film, but Huston expanded to a beautiful fit.

So adaptation can be done , but it takes a lot of work and creative skill.

[Chaircat Meow]

Protar, you obviously have not seen a lot of books/comics adapted into film/TV. Look at the Hobbit coming out: the work's getting butchered by PJ and his crew by throwing in unnecessary characters and plotlines, like a love story between one of the dwarves and a female elf, who was not present in the book. This is already a major change, something that I don't even think GoT's has experienced, contrary to what you might think.

:lmao: Oh man, is this really true?

[DragonAge93]

:lmao: Oh man, is this really true?

Yes, unfortunately. It's the human, handsome looking dwarf and the elf girl being played by the Lost actress. Now THAT is being unfaithful to adaption.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yes, unfortunately. It's the human, handsome looking dwarf and the elf girl being played by the Lost actress. Now THAT is being unfaithful to adaption.

Ah, that's really funny. Yea - D&D aren't in that league.

[protar]

Yes, unfortunately. It's the human, handsome looking dwarf and the elf girl being played by the Lost actress. Now THAT is being unfaithful to adaption.

That's really disappointing considering that LOTR was a mostly faithful adaptation. I'd say the only things that come to mind that were really unnecessary were the Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes to Faramir.

[Khal Porno]

The Lord of the Rings movies took many, many more (and more significant) liberties with the source material than Game of Thrones has. However, I don't think any of them were bad, and in fact mostly improved things for the movies. EDIT: except for not resolving Saruman's fate. Luckily they rectified that in the extended edition, and rather well in my opinion.

[protar]

Padraig, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Protar, you obviously have not seen a lot of books/comics adapted into film/TV. Look at the Hobbit coming out: the work's getting butchered by PJ and his crew by throwing in unnecessary characters and plotlines, like a love story between one of the dwarves and a female elf, who was not present in the book. This is already a major change, something that I don't even think GoT's has experienced, contrary to what you might think.

I admit that there are a lot of unfaithful adaptations out there, but I don't see that as an excuse for GOT to be unfaithful. I'm judging the show on it's own, not in relation to other shows.

You say that this is the only GoT adaption we'll get for a long time, so why not enjoy what we get, no matter the differences? We finally get to see Eddard, Jon, Dany, and a living, breathing Westeros. Would you rather have had a 2 hour PG-13 film, as many wanted to do when they approached GRRM?

No because that would result in even more changes. The 10 hours per book is the only thing allowing any semblance of the books to remain in this show pretty much. And we're not much seeing Jon Snow on screen, we're seeing a bumbling idiot masquerading of Jon Snow (not meaning any offense to Kit, just to his not particularly intelligent portrayal of Jon.

First and foremost is what makes good TV, not what makes a good adaption. And it's obviously good TV with all the awards and nominations its garnering. And viewers must be loving it, even with the changes, as season 2's finale set an all-time high in ratings for GoT. I want a faithful adaption, too. But I also want a good TV show I can indulge myself with, and GoT gives me both, even with the changes. We always tell you this and give you quotes and proof, but you seem to just discard it and repeat your same complaints. D&D love the source material, if they didn't, why the hell would they be out right now working their asses off trying to bring this story to the screen?

I understand that the most important thing is making as good TV-show that can be enjoyed by readers and non-readers alike. And in that respect the show's doing great. I simply disagree that all these changes are necessary to achieve that. The show would've worked fine with Jeyne, with Jon and Qhorin's wilderness chase, without dragonknapping etc. etc.

And really, loving the source material does not mean that they understand the material or know what they're doing. If you listen to the behind the episodes interviews they make some statements that are pretty big misinterpretations of the text.

They need to make changes because it's TV. Nothing can be word-for-word. ACoK was more complex and twisting than AGoT, which was relatively more light and had a more central character in Ned that it can focus on for season 1. With season 2, we had 3-4 different storylines, sometimes more, that had to jump around. It can't be extremely faithful, since there are only 10 episodes to tell the center of the story.

Yes ACOK is a lot more complex than AGOT but again, doesn't excuse every deviation, especially not the ones that take up more time than the books. Furthermore, if you're pinning the blame for the changes on this, then logically they should be looking to revert back to the S1 model in S3, as the scope is about the same as S2 but with more episodes to do it in. But they've given every indication that they wish to continue the trend of deviating from the books, purely to exercise their own creativity it would seem.

I also don't see your outright concern over Jeyne's alteration. Such a minor character (thus far in the books) has been altered to fit the Robb in the show, who we probably won't see a lot of except for two-three episodes next season, and you despise her because she's "spunky" and stands up to Robb? I guess you hate Arya then, too, for never doing what she is told and not following the status quo. She had to amputate a man's leg over a, in her view, pointless war, so she was a little on-edge during that first meeting with Robb. You can later see as she gets to know him she starts respecting him more and apologizing for things.

Well a large part of not liking her is simply that she's not in the books I'll admit, especially as I don't agree with any of the justifications for her inclusion. However I also don't like her character. Arya is in fact a complete deconstruction of the typical tomboy princess, what with becoming quite psychopathic and showing signs of PTSD. Talisa is just plain old cliched.

And this is all that really matters: the main story. We got that in season 2: the War of Five Kings escalating, culminating in Blackwater, like in the books. Dany went to Qarth and is now leaving Qarth, per the books. Jon has joined the Wildlings like in the books. Arya has left Harrenhal and on her way to Catelyn, sans the books. Jaime and Brienne are on their way to King's Landing like in the books. They stuck true to the main story points of each character, but had to make changes along the way to make it more interesting for TV.

Well I guess we simply have a different view on things. Martin's always going on about how "the devil is in the details" and I'd tend to agree. The little details of faithfulness in season 1 really let the show capture the atmosphere in the books. S2 didn't have that for me and it's because they've gone for the broader approach in adapting the source material.

Dany's Qarth story in ACoK is weak, many will agree, and although some hated it in the show, it did bring out shock in the audience, to both non-book readers and some book-readers alike. Same with Jon's storyline. They had him spend more time with Ygritte to establish their relationship and to get the audience more acquainted with her next season, instead of focusing on Qhorin who would be dead in a few episodes. Yeah, you'll say "This is why they should've focused on Qhorin, he dies by the end so give him screen time". Well, that's not how it can work in TV. It could, but I see the reason D&D wanted the change.

If you mean shocked as in "WTF have they done to this show!" then sure :P. I do understand the reasons for these particular changes I just disagree with them, or how they were implemented. Something needed to change in Dany's arc, I just feel the Qarth arc made no sense. I know they wanted to emphasise Ygritte over Qhorin I just think it would've been better to take the one-time opportunity to develop Jon's relationship with Qhorin.

You are a lover of the books, I respect that and I can understand why some of the changes might irritate you. But GRRM, the author of yours and our beloved series, loves the series, as he has stated numerous times, and even goes to conventions like Comic-Con to support the show, and loves the cast and the work they put in. Near the end of this recent interview you'll see the praise GRRM gives the show:http://www.adriasnew...-interview.html. Here's the excerpt:

I do appreciate the show and know martin does to. There's just only so many times I can say, that was cool. I'd rather tackle the issues I have with the show. And you can tell in recent interviews that George is uncomfortable with the Talisa change for example. He tries to stay positive but that doesn't mean he thinks the show is perfect. I can see why he wouldn't want to make a hassle of things.

I know we all have our opinions, but sometimes you have to be understanding in the making of this show, and while you can hate aspects of it, at least try to understand there are reasons other than "Let's do it for the hell of it!" I guess that's the part that infuriates me, your ignorance to how adapting this show works. I don't mean to sound rude, and you do spark interesting debates, but please, just look at the bigger picture, and not the tiny, insubstantial detail that shouldn't subtract from the epicness of the show.

Well again, I guess we simply have a different philosophy of adaptation. For you the broad strokes of the plot are enough. For me I want the details and atmosphere to, and their things which aren't to do with budget and time constraints.