Cogman Talks Inside Game of Thrones, S3

[Ran]

The best of the films was inarguably the first film... which also took the fewest liberties with its source material, it must be noted (but, like A Game of Thrones, it's also the simplest novel to adapt). The only really significant changes, in fact, were dropping Tom Bombadil and Fatty Bolger, and I suppose substituting Arwen for Glorfindel. Otherwise, it's pretty faithful.

... and in fact mostly improved things...

Matter of opinion there. Green ghosts swarming over the Pelennor Fields did not make for great film... Return of the King had the biggest problems of the three films, where some of PJs most egregiously annoying habits came most to the fore, alas.

[Chaircat Meow]

Also Denethor. Oh boy.

[Katydid]

The only really significant changes, in fact, were dropping Tom Bombadil and Fatty Bolger, and I suppose substituting Arwen for Glorfindel.

And the entire Scouring of the Shire. Which I really, really missed.

I guess I understand some of the changes that are made in a book adaptation as massive as ASoIaF, but some I never will. Mainly the stupid little things. Changing Asha's name was a big one. Have a little faith in your audience, we're not as stupid as you may fear, and we know full well that "Asha" and "Osha" are two totally different people who have yet to even meet in the books.

Wussifying Cersei and giving Joffrey the killing of Robert's bastards, I absolutely loathed. I love batshit book!Cersei and her vicious, scheming ways, and seeing her cow before Joffrey's post-slap menacing threats was saddening. I was so happy with the Blackwater episode, when book!Cersei finally came peeking onto the screen.

Joffrey having 2 whores beat each other was pathetic, considering we'd just seen him have Sansa stripped & beaten in a pretty public location; we get it, he's a sadistic little shit. That scene with the whores was an utter waste of screentime.

And don't get me started on Brienne's brutal killings, right out of the gate. Yeah it made for more "actiony" sequences, established her prowess with a sword and impressed the hell out of Jaime, but it detracted so much from her girlish innocence being ripped away piece by piece, as her story naturally develops in the book. :(

[boojam]

And the entire Scouring of the Shire. Which I really, really missed.

Scouring of the Shire always seemed like worse than an anticlimax , I never liked it, Peter Jackson , kind a, said they just did not have time for it, but I wonder if he really liked it?

[Ran]

I was just talking about FotR.

The Scouring of the Shire is indeed a major deviation, and not a good one in terms of the thematic message of the intended narrative. But maybe literature can better convey what Tolkien intended than what's genuinely possible in a commercial, broadly-targeted Hollywood film project headed by a talented director with limited vision.

[DragonAge93]

I think PJ said he didn't want to have it seem like the film's ending, only for them to return to the Shire only to have the movie continue on running with another ending. I didn't mind them ending it where they did, having it culminate at Minas Tirith and ending with the hobbits returning peacefully to the Shire. The scouring would've only put another half hour more into an already long film, so audiences might have been exhausted with all these "It is over.... no wait it's not" moments.

Most people love the LOTR movies for what they are: great films with epic storytelling. They didn't win 11 Oscars because they were faithful adaptions. Same with GoT. GoT is a great show, and along with that a great adaption that sticks true most of the time to the heart of the story.

And at least the writer of the books approves of his adaption. Chris Tolkien, while he didn't write LOTR, hates the films, and finds them a scar on his father's work, and even said his father wouldn't approve. So, hell, D&D do most of it right to have the approval of GRRM.

[Padraig]

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.

Yes, but you are lucky that the series isn't even less faithful. :) That's what people are trying to explain. That details and atmosphere from the book may not be as easy to convey in a TV show.

All the changes may not be objectively necessary but the critical issue is intent. I don't believe D&D make changes because they want to have a laugh or whatever else you have suggested previously. The show could have kept Jeyne as a character name but they saw more use for her as a non-Westerosi (with little loss). I don't know why you think Jon Snow is a bumbling idiot.

They wanted to give Jon and Ygritte more time together because it is an important part of the plot later. I don't see why you think developing a very temporary relationship is definitely better than developing a more lasting one.

And they wanted to give Dany more to do in S2. Some of those changes may not have turned out as well as hoped for but it isn't hard to see what they were trying to do. D&D are not perfect or time constraints mean they have to make sacrifices. Its up to us to decide whether they tried their best or not.

GRRM has done some interesting things with Arya but a complete disconstruction of the tomboyish princess? Please. Talisa is a bit of a cliche but she isn't the only one in the story. Cliches are impossible to avoid. Its not something to angst over.

If you listen to the behind the episodes interviews they make some statements that are pretty big misinterpretations of the text.

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.

And you can tell in recent interviews that George is uncomfortable with the Talisa change for example.

I'd like to see you prove any of these statements. :) IMO, they are complete figments of your imagination...but I'm happy to accept I am wrong if I see the relevant sources

GRRM has actually said that the details aren't particularly important. Depends on the details of course. :) That's why he is happy enough with the changes. They don't alter the critical things. He has said that he writes in great detail but its just the background.

I guess I understand some of the changes that are made in a book adaptation as massive as ASoIaF, but some I never will. Mainly the stupid little things. :(

I'm the complete opposite. Why would I care about silly little things? TV is such a bit enterprise that silly little things are always going to creep in. I just want the plot to make sense. Yara's name changes nothing important to me. Lena Headey has interpreted Cersei a bit differently. Fine. Whatever. They have pushed up the action side of Brienne. Typical TV. I wouldn't go into the things that I did find bad. :)

[Currawong]

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.

Meaning that they don't agree with your interpretation? Judging by boards such as Westeros, there is no single 'right' interpretation of the books - if there was, you wouldn't have all the debate about even the tiniest aspects.

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.

And maybe they are also taking a much longer view of the books and the changes that will be necessary in later seasons. If they know they need to omit or change something in Season 5, then they may have to set things up for that in Season 2 or 3.

Talisa is just plain old cliched.

I was quite happy for them to change Jeyne - having her just suddenly appear out of the blue with Robb, all sweet and happily married, would have made no sense in the context of a TV show. She'd appear with him, we'd get about a 5 minute scene with Robb and his explanation to Cat, and that would be the end of Jeyne's appearance in the show. If they have cut the very much later AFFC scene with Jaime sending the hostages back to Casterly Rock (season 5?), then where else do we need her? Once they made the decision to show much more of Robb than we see in Book 2, they needed to do something with the Jeyne story to make it sensible for TV viewers. TV Robb is still just a horny teenage idiot who ignores the bigger picture and his oath in favour of his hormones and a misplaced sense of 'honour' but at least the Talisa character makes the TV storyline slightly more sensible. MY only problem with the Talisa storyline was having her an attractive young woman 'safe' in the midst of a medieval army: it made no sense at all, especially given that even the strong warrior Brienne is always worried about the possibility of rape. How much chance would a delicate little thing like Talisa have in an army?

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. .... . 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.

Details and atmosphere ARE very much concerned with budget and time constraints!! EVERYTHING in a TV show has a dollar cost.

We understand that you don't like many of the changes, protar, and that is obviously quite OK - everyone has his/her own opinion and likes / dislikes. But are you now going to be a masochist, and continue watching Season 3 and beyond, in the full knowledge that there are going to be changes and things that you won't like? If you so dislike the changes already made and the general direction of the show, are you only going to watch future seasons so that you will have something to gripe about? Generally, people who really don't like a TV show or the way things are developing in a series manage to locate the Off switch, and find something better to do with their time than sitting and watching something that makes them as cross/upset as you seem to be in some of your posts. (I did that with the Harry Potter movies - I am a book fan, but after seeing HP and the Half Blood Prince I decided that I wasn't going to waste my money on going to see the last two movies at the cinema, and would wait for them to turn up on free to air TV - where I could simply change channels if I didn't like them :D I still haven't seen Deathly Hallows Pt 2 ...)

[GoodGuyA]

The best of the films was inarguably the first film...

I'd argue that greatly.

I think the biggest thing here is losing sight of the plot, and sometimes it just can't be helped. ACoK was bound to lose itself somewhere, despite what they did with it. Cat could have either been sulking for a season, or she could have advanced the plot a bit, allowing for some resolution with her character. They could have spent an inordinate amount of time developing Maester Cressen, but they decided that brevity and framing it in Davos' eyes the best route. Arya could have had a ridiculous action scene involving soup, but her arc of turning has been postponed. The TV show can do things well with what they're given, but I have to wonder about certain scenes in the books and whether they really would have been better suited than the changes. As we get further in the books as well there's a lot of bloating that simply could never be represented fully on screen, and we will welcome the changes then. The difference between book and screen becomes more and more evident as you reach those pieces.

[protar]

Yes, but you are lucky that the series isn't even less faithful. :) That's what people are trying to explain. That details and atmosphere from the book may not be as easy to convey in a TV show.

I get that yeah, but that still doesn't change things for GOT is what I'm saying.

All the changes may not be objectively necessary but the critical issue is intent. I don't believe D&D make changes because they want to have a laugh or whatever else you have suggested previously. The show could have kept Jeyne as a character name but they saw more use for her as a non-Westerosi (with little loss).

Little loss? That's entirely a matter of opinion. I think it was a great loss and not because I think Jeyne was a super important part of the books, but because I found Talisa unbearable to watch. If they'd written her character well, and gotten a half decent actress to play her I could've at least enjoyed her separate from the adaptation but I couldn't even do that. Imo, Talisa is not just an example of bad adaptation but also a bad TV in general.

I don't know why you think Jon Snow is a bumbling idiot.

They wanted to give Jon and Ygritte more time together because it is an important part of the plot later. I don't see why you think developing a very temporary relationship is definitely better than developing a more lasting one.

I think Jon was a bumbling idiot because he was. He was completely incompetent throughout the Great Ranging and was directly responsible for the deaths of Qhorin and his entire team. Compare this to Jon in the books were he's a valuable addition to the ranging and I don't think it's hard to see were my gripe is.

I understand their reasoning for developing Ygritte earlier on I just disagree with it, or at least how it was done. If they'd managed to create a decent story there perhaps I could've gotten behind it a little bit more (though it still would've been a poor adaptation.), but as it was we just got Ygritte going on about boners. Again, not just bad adaptation, bad TV, and I think that Jon and Qhorin's wilderness chase would've made much more exciting television as well as developing Jon's character.

And they wanted to give Dany more to do in S2. Some of those changes may not have turned out as well as hoped for but it isn't hard to see what they were trying to do. D&D are not perfect or time constraints mean they have to make sacrifices. Its up to us to decide whether they tried their best or not.

And as I've said many times, I agree with the trying to do something with Dany in S2, because the 5 chapters in the books were she does very little until the HOTU wouldn't work. I'm just not too keen on what we got, which was a rather trite story riddled with plot holes imo.

GRRM has done some interesting things with Arya but a complete disconstruction of the tomboyish princess? Please. Talisa is a bit of a cliche but she isn't the only one in the story. Cliches are impossible to avoid. Its not something to angst over.

And now we get to the part were you just straight up dismiss my opinions. Ookay.

I'd like to see you prove any of these statements. :) IMO, they are complete figments of your imagination...but I'm happy to accept I am wrong if I see the relevant sources.

Well as I said in my post, you can look at the Inside the Episode interviews, which are just a youtube search away if you can be bothered to search for them.

The detail about wanting to continue changing things is in the very interview this thread is about.

As for the Talisa detail, it's in one of the recent ones were he confirmed that he was the one who suggested the name change from Jeyne to Talisa. You can clearly hear the discomfort in his voice on the subject and I'm not the only one to have noted it.

The thread discussing it, with a link to the interview is here:

GRRM has actually said that the details aren't particularly important. Depends on the details of course. :) That's why he is happy enough with the changes. They don't alter the critical things. He has said that he writes in great detail but its just the background.

I'd like to see you prove any of these statements. IMO, they are complete figments of your imagination...but I'm happy to accept I am wrong if I see the relevant sources.

I'm the complete opposite. Why would I care about silly little things? TV is such a bit enterprise that silly little things are always going to creep in. I just want the plot to make sense. Yara's name changes nothing important to me. Lena Headey has interpreted Cersei a bit differently. Fine. Whatever. They have pushed up the action side of Brienne. Typical TV. I wouldn't go into the things that I did find bad. :)

I care about these "silly little things" because it's in them that the atmosphere of the books comes out in the show. The LOTR and Harry Potter films have quite a few deviations from the books but when you're watching them, for me at least it's the same atmosphere, you feel like this is the books on screen. I used to get that with GOT but in S2 I'm not feeling that anymore.

[protar]

Meaning that they don't agree with your interpretation? Judging by boards such as Westeros, there is no single 'right' interpretation of the books - if there was, you wouldn't have all the debate about even the tiniest aspects.

No I mean they don't agree with anyone's interpretation. There are multiple ways to read the books but that does not mean that anyone can think anything about a certain aspect of them and be correct. It's those kinds of misinterpretation I'm talking about.

[Dragon greyscale]

No I mean they don't agree with anyone's interpretation. There are multiple ways to read the books but that does not mean that anyone can think anything about a certain aspect of them and be correct. It's those kinds of misinterpretation I'm talking about.

You're talking about consensus, and yes there is a consensus on what asoiaf is (medieval fantasy with political intrigue and mystical elements).

You're picking the wrong fight with Jeyne/Talisa though. The best thing people come up with is "shy" but that's just code for being a blank slate.

D&D had to bring their own input once they decide to expand Robb's role. The result should be judged on its own merit, not in comparison to the book consensus because there's nothing there!

Jon is a different case though. You said he's a bumbling idiot in the show conpared to the books.. Could you give specific examples (actions and words)?

[Padraig]

Protar, obviously what i'm saying is a matter of opinion. :) But even if most people did decide that Talisa was unbearable to watch (and I don't think they do), what if D&D thought she wasn't? We are not all going to agree on these things. And certainly D&D have done a lot of things that people do agree with. So how much credit do they deserve?

I find that a lot of people say they think an actor is bad but their role is different from the books. The closer the actor is to the character in the books, the better the actor is. And then its easier to make a personal attack against an actor rather than explain what was so bad about what the actor did. I certainly haven't seen anything bad in the acting from Oona Chaplin.

Jon wasn't responsible for Qhorin's capture. One actual fault in the TV show is that Qhorin should never have been captured alive but that had nothing to do with Jon. Jon wasn't incompetent either. He exposed a major crime that Craster was participating in. Not his fault that the Watch was ignoring it. Again, it seems a natural reaction to a change is to criticise the character or the actor.

I don't see how Jon been chased would develop his character. :) The Ygritte bits were fine to me. She kept trying to distract him, which was clever. The ending of Dany's arc in S2 was very flawed. There were some other questionable things there also but at the same time, why shouldn't somebody steal the dragons for example? One interesting thing from the Cogman interview is that they apparently started writing S2 a lot later than they started writing S3. This was partly because they were very uncertain about the reception for GoT but for S3, they were confident of getting another season. So maybe Dany's story did suffer a little because of time pressures. But at least we all agree that a change should have been made. :) Or sometimes, in the translation from paper to screen, it just doesn't work for lots of different reasons. Making TV is a tough enterprise. I give them some leeway given a lot of things worked very well.

And now we get to the part were you just straight up dismiss my opinions.

Well yes. :P I'm a big fan of GRRM but you shouldn't expect to get away with statements like "Arya is a complete disconstruction of the tomboyish princess". Its not a criticism of the character. I think we just need some perspective. :)

The detail about wanting to continue changing things is in the very interview this thread is about.

The problem is that you have exaggerated things and given them an incorrect spin. Its like how you suggested that not transcribing the books was a bad idea. So you certainly can't use Cogman's interview to back up your argument. Similarly, there is a lot of "Inside the Episode" interviews, so perhaps you can at least remind me what they actually said that was so terrible? I can then find the relevant one if required.

The Talisa thing gives your argument some substance. Amusingly, I was actually at that interview. :) And again, what exactly is he saying? It all involves a bit of interpretation. Maybe he doesn't think it worked perfectly but he can understand why they tried it? Maybe he hates it? Maybe he likes it but is tired of talking about it? It's very difficult to say. GRRM certainly wants them to be as faithful as possible but he will understand a lot of the changes better than we would.

I'd like to see you prove any of these statements.

Just to be clear. You haven't seen one of those interviews where he is asked about small changes in adaptation? How some fans can get very excited about the little things when he doesn't? I can find at least one of them, i'm sure. But I would have thought they were well known.

[GoodGuyA]

The ending of Dany's arc in S2 was very flawed. There were some other questionable things there also but at the same time, why shouldn't somebody steal the dragons for example?

I never spoke on this, but I actually thought of this as a change before it happened in the show. It's just so obvious and actually does make total sense. I'm completely certain that at least once in ACoK, Dany worries about her dragons being stolen. Having them actually stolen gives her incentive, rather than just having a vague feeling of wanting to know something mystical. People are just mad because of her reaction, I think, rather than the change actually being there.

[DragonAge93]

Protar, no offense, but you always repeat the same response of, "Yes but that doesn't give GoT the right to deviate..."

Why do you keep telling yourself GRRM secretly hates the show and all the little changes? Did you not see the earlier interview I posted? And we've told you countless times GRRM has WORKED in television before writing ASOIAF. He knows things can't work out the way you want them to. GRRM has stated MANY times he wrote ASOIAF because he could make it as big as possible and it'd be impossible to translate to TV. And now that we got people who are actually bold enough to tackle this and attempt to give us a great show and adaption, you call them the antichrist of ASOIAF? D&D don't have to religiously study the texts to understand the story. Hell, even GRRM doesn't remember half these little details some people go on about them changing. If you were adapting the books, protar, you'd be in tight situations as well. You'd want to be faithful and whatnot, but then they'd say "Well, we don't have enough money or the time to gather all these extras/horses/sets", and then you'd understand that it's not possible to transcribe these books word-for-word to the screen.

And how do you not get an ASOIAF atmosphere watching the show, but felt with all the changes to LOTR it felt atmospheric? When I'm watching GoT, and many others, they know this is Westeros, that this is GRRM's world. If the changes are going to irritate you, you could always just not watch? Why waste your time on watching something you'll inevitably hate?

I'm defending this adaption because I know how lucky we are to even get something this close to George's books. Again protar, would you rather have had a 2 hour PG-13 movie that many producers came to GRRM and wanted to do? You should be grateful to D&D for at least trying to stay true to the overall story of the books. I can only imagine the response to something like that. With a movie adaption you would have no Jeyne at all. True Blood's showrunners, from what I hear, have deviated so far from the books it is based on that there is nothing recognizable about it, and this was from season 1. D&D have only created scenes that might have happened offpage on the book, like Robert and Cersei's talk about their marriage and what have you. And you can't throw every blame on D&D's shoulders. HBO can be to blame, as can the directors of the episodes, and sometimes even the cast.

[protar]

Protar, no offense, but you always repeat the same response of, "Yes but that doesn't give GoT the right to deviate..."

Why do you keep telling yourself GRRM secretly hates the show and all the little changes? Did you not see the earlier interview I posted? And we've told you countless times GRRM has WORKED in television before writing ASOIAF. He knows things can't work out the way you want them to. GRRM has stated MANY times he wrote ASOIAF because he could make it as big as possible and it'd be impossible to translate to TV. And now that we got people who are actually bold enough to tackle this and attempt to give us a great show and adaption, you call them the antichrist of ASOIAF? D&D don't have to religiously study the texts to understand the story. Hell, even GRRM doesn't remember half these little details some people go on about them changing. If you were adapting the books, protar, you'd be in tight situations as well. You'd want to be faithful and whatnot, but then they'd say "Well, we don't have enough money or the time to gather all these extras/horses/sets", and then you'd understand that it's not possible to transcribe these books word-for-word to the screen.

And how do you not get an ASOIAF atmosphere watching the show, but felt with all the changes to LOTR it felt atmospheric? When I'm watching GoT, and many others, they know this is Westeros, that this is GRRM's world. If the changes are going to irritate you, you could always just not watch? Why waste your time on watching something you'll inevitably hate?

I'm defending this adaption because I know how lucky we are to even get something this close to George's books. Again protar, would you rather have had a 2 hour PG-13 movie that many producers came to GRRM and wanted to do? You should be grateful to D&D for at least trying to stay true to the overall story of the books. I can only imagine the response to something like that. With a movie adaption you would have no Jeyne at all. True Blood's showrunners, from what I hear, have deviated so far from the books it is based on that there is nothing recognizable about it, and this was from season 1. D&D have only created scenes that might have happened offpage on the book, like Robert and Cersei's talk about their marriage and what have you. And you can't throw every blame on D&D's shoulders. HBO can be to blame, as can the directors of the episodes, and sometimes even the cast.

I think your main problem with me is that you don't know what I'm going on about, indicated by this post which lists a bunch of complaints about me that are not true at all.

I'm not telling myself Martin secretly hates the show, he clearly doesn't. However that does not mean he is 100% behind every change in the show and personally, I thought in his interviews that he wasn't happy with the change to Jeyne. I don't see why this is so unreasonable, afterall he's just had one of his characters drastically changed in a situation where budget is not an issue, because D+D didn't think what he'd written was good for TV.

And I do in fact understand that adapting a book series is difficult and that a word-for-word adaptation is impossible (not that I, or indeed any purist wants that as the apologists seem to think but whatever.). But to say that all of these changes were a result of time and budgetary constraints is ridiculous bordering on delusional. The fact is that D+D have taken creative license with the show in areas. I simply don't agree with this. You might but that doesn't mean squat to me.

I can't speak for why I feel certain ways about the atmosphere of films or shows. By definition it's kind of hard to put your finger on why a show/film/book/whatever has a certain atmosphere. So sorry I don't share you opinion on the matter.

Also, you still don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that I don't hate the show. As a show it's entertaining for the most part, it's just an awful adaptation. So I go on here as a form of catharsis so I can enjoy the show and outline what I dislike. Then D+D fans like yourself attack me which obviously results in anger and frustration. Perhaps if we could have polite discussions where you don't present your opinions as fact and insult me all the time that kind of attitude could be avoided.

And finally, no I wouldn't want a PG-13 movie. As you pointed out that would result in an even less faithful series, which you may have noticed is not what I want. Do you understand me? That makes sense right?

So in summary, when you argue with someone, do try and get straight what their opinions are before arguing with them kay?

[protar]

Protar, obviously what i'm saying is a matter of opinion. :) But even if most people did decide that Talisa was unbearable to watch (and I don't think they do), what if D&D thought she wasn't? We are not all going to agree on these things. And certainly D&D have done a lot of things that people do agree with. So how much credit do they deserve?

Well I think we can assume that D+D thought Talisa was good, even I wouldn't go so far as to claim they would deliberately inflict us with someone unbearable. So it's kind of a moot point. All you're really pointing out is that people have differing opinions. So?

I find that a lot of people say they think an actor is bad but their role is different from the books. The closer the actor is to the character in the books, the better the actor is. And then its easier to make a personal attack against an actor rather than explain what was so bad about what the actor did. I certainly haven't seen anything bad in the acting from Oona Chaplin.

Again, a matter of opinion. Just because you thought she was fine it does not mean everyone does. I thought her acting was wooden and didn't properly convey emotion. I guess I'd say it all sounded a bit forced. As to the correlation between characters being different from the books and being bad actors I think this is generally because the invented material is inferior to the book material (I hope no one here is claiming D+D to be better writers than Martin.) and therefore the writing is worse, resulting in stilted performances. So if you're implying that it's simply purist bias that's not the case. For example I dislike Ros's character, but I think the actress is fairly talented and I like her performance (would that she had been cast as Shae.).

Jon wasn't responsible for Qhorin's capture. One actual fault in the TV show is that Qhorin should never have been captured alive but that had nothing to do with Jon. Jon wasn't incompetent either. He exposed a major crime that Craster was participating in. Not his fault that the Watch was ignoring it. Again, it seems a natural reaction to a change is to criticise the character or the actor.

I don't see how Jon been chased would develop his character. :) The Ygritte bits were fine to me. She kept trying to distract him, which was clever.

Jon was indeed responsible for Qhorin's capture. His getting separated from the group led to them going out to find him and then getting caught. And I'm fairly sure Qhorin directly tells Jon it's his fault. And regardless of whether it is or not, getting separated from your team (who are all of 100 metres away.) and then getting outsmarted by your captive and caught by her allies is pretty incompetent.

The ending of Dany's arc in S2 was very flawed. There were some other questionable things there also but at the same time, why shouldn't somebody steal the dragons for example? One interesting thing from the Cogman interview is that they apparently started writing S2 a lot later than they started writing S3. This was partly because they were very uncertain about the reception for GoT but for S3, they were confident of getting another season. So maybe Dany's story did suffer a little because of time pressures. But at least we all agree that a change should have been made. :) Or sometimes, in the translation from paper to screen, it just doesn't work for lots of different reasons. Making TV is a tough enterprise. I give them some leeway given a lot of things worked very well.

Well at least we can sort of agree about something :)

But tbh it wasn't the dragonknapping itself that made no sense, it was that the politics of Qarth made no sense. Xaro is able to become king of Qarth without any resistance yet later Dany can just waltz into his manse. If he had such pathetic security why did none of the other powerful figures in Qarth (which much surely have existed in such a large city.) take over from him sooner? That's just the start of the plot holes in Qarth. There must be dozens of threads on the topic which you can look at if you want, many of which I've posted in myself.

Well yes. :P I'm a big fan of GRRM but you shouldn't expect to get away with statements like "Arya is a complete disconstruction of the tomboyish princess". Its not a criticism of the character. I think we just need some perspective. :)

Well I thin we'll just have to disagree here. Although I don't particularly like Arya anyway now that you mention it :P

The problem is that you have exaggerated things and given them an incorrect spin. Its like how you suggested that not transcribing the books was a bad idea. So you certainly can't use Cogman's interview to back up your argument. Similarly, there is a lot of "Inside the Episode" interviews, so perhaps you can at least remind me what they actually said that was so terrible? I can then find the relevant one if required.

Well to give a couple of my favourite examples they claimed that Jon had no father figures (he has about half a dozen.) and that Cat was directly responsible for Robb sleeping with Talisa. Apologies, but I can't remember the exact interviews.

The Talisa thing gives your argument some substance. Amusingly, I was actually at that interview. :) And again, what exactly is he saying? It all involves a bit of interpretation. Maybe he doesn't think it worked perfectly but he can understand why they tried it? Maybe he hates it? Maybe he likes it but is tired of talking about it? It's very difficult to say. GRRM certainly wants them to be as faithful as possible but he will understand a lot of the changes better than we would.

True, it's just my interpretation and something like tone of voice is incredibly subjective. But do we agree that he sounded uncomfortable in some way?

Just to be clear. You haven't seen one of those interviews where he is asked about small changes in adaptation? How some fans can get very excited about the little things when he doesn't? I can find at least one of them, i'm sure. But I would have thought they were well known.

I was just teasing you here. I copied your post if you noticed :P

However I will just say that I have seen some of those interviews and they're all about things like the colour of horses, or Syrio having hair, which I agree are ridiculous things to complain about. I have never seen him say he doesn't care about some of the larger changes. He may like them, he may hate them, he may be unsure, but to say he doesn't care about these things is just silly.

[King Tommen]

I think we can all agree that the show isn't perfect and that some choices were not ideal. If you got D&D cornered and talked to them off the record, I'm sure they'd probably admit that the Jon arc and Dany's story probably didn't work out as well as they should have in retrospect. You could blame that on a number of things (including their own artistic license) and you'd be right. This is true of any writer. Martin has said himself that if he could go back in time, there are parts of the books he would write differently and this is a guy who has had an unlimited timeline and no one to answer to besides himself in creating this story.

I guess the difference between some fans and others is that I don't think these missteps are as egregious as others are making them out to be. I don't feel like any character has been "butchered" or any plotline "ruined". For me, there are some things that I wish were portrayed differently but they're more minor inconveniences to me than anything else because of how kick ass the remainder of the presentation has been. I certainly don't believe that it is accurate to state that it is a "horrible adaptation" or "fanfiction". Anyone who is stating that in my mind, just has unrealistic expectations of this project and will not be appeased by anything that is produced by the HBO show.

[Le Cygne]

The LOTR and Harry Potter films have quite a few deviations from the books but when you're watching them, for me at least it's the same atmosphere, you feel like this is the books on screen. I used to get that with GOT but in S2 I'm not feeling that anymore.

Same here. An adaptation shouldn't make it seem like a different story.

[oierem]

I was just talking about FotR.

There are MANY more changes in Fellowship; basically, the first half of the book is totally different. Not only Tom Bombadill is omited, three entire chapters are omited (chapters 6-8), and another 3 severely shortened and changed (chapters 3-5).

And those changes were GOOD. They helped to streamline the story.