the uncanny valley of TV adaptions

[ckongo]

Think the reaction to book purists is a little over the top. Most of us don't mind changes as long as they make sense and are good television. The criticism comes when D&D make alterations that aren't as good as the source material, and for no apparent reason (even after taking into account the demands of producing a tv show).

That said, I was hoping s02 was an abberation and they'd stick closer to the books this season. But it meant after ep301 I resigned myself to there being big deviations, and I am now quite enjoying not knowing what will happen!

People like to categorize book purists in the worst possible light. It makes it easier to dismiss their monologues. I have yet to see a poster on these forums who has bitched about things like hair color or Tyrion's nose, etc. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

Most book purists are reasonable. We concede some changes must be made. Sometimes minor characters have to be cut or delayed, but then you get the things like added plots which essentially force a removal of book material, and changes that don't save time at all. Some will argue that all this had to be done but there is no way that is the case.

One solid example: all the stuff with Qhorin Halfhand and Ygritte. What did they have to cut from the book to save screen time? They just changed it for the worse. Forget that Qhorin and Jon's characters were nerfed though the whole season and bare with me.

Book version:

Jon hearing the story of the ancient Stark lord from Ygritte, Qhorin saying to "do what needs to be done,"and Jon letting Ygritte go, ending with Jon killing Qhorin in front of the wildlings as they travel on

Show version:

Qhorin Half-brain who says to kill Ygritte, Jon fails, chases her through the snow, have 3+ scenes where she just teases him about his vows, Qhorin and Jon gets captured, and Qhorin forces Jon to kill him.

[Mr Fixit]

It's sad to think that they butchered the character arcs of six of the original seven POV characters (and even the one that wasn't butchered, Tyrion, has been severely whitewashed).

Hyperbole much?

Don't answer.

[PatrickStormborn]

There, fixed that for you

Wow, what a great contribution. :rolleyes: If you don't think they're butchered (and by that I mean significantly different from the book version), then that's fine. But if that's the case then I have to question your knowledge of the books.

[Independent George]

If you don't think they're butchered (and by that I mean significantly different from the book version), then that's fine. But if that's the case then I have to question your knowledge of the books.

Wow. It must be very hard being right all the time, and having to deal with people with such obviously wrong opinions. Especially after you've told them they're wrong, and people still insist on thinking for themselves and disagreeing with you.

[Theda Baratheon]

You just can't please some damn people. Written word and film are two wholly different mediums and I fucking adore both the books and the TV show.

Though there are a few things that irritate me.

One of them making Robb a full on IDIOT.

[Mr Fixit]

Most book purists are reasonable. We concede some changes must be made.

That's the thing, isn't it? Stating one is reasonable doesn't make it so. I've read countless posts by self-professed "reasonable purists" who "understand that changes must be made" that then ignorantly proceed to rage on every single change.

And you know what's even more hilarious? When those same purists talk about adapting material they themselves don't particularly like (especially parts of AFFC/ADWD), many suddenly have no qualms about "butchering" it. Meaning, these virtuous purists are pure only insofar as books follow their wishes. They are essentially (not all of them, of course) pretty hypocritical and self-absorbed. Arguing with them is hard, not to mention unproductive.

[PatrickStormborn]

Wow. It must be very hard being right all the time, and having to deal with people with such obviously wrong opinions. Especially after you've told them they're wrong, and people still insist on thinking for themselves and disagreeing with you.

1. Catelyn is undoubtedly completely different from the books. She lacks her political skill, and the majority of her ideas have been given to other characters such as Robb and Brienne.
   
   
2. Jon is responsible for Qhorin Halfhand being captured and, eventually, killed. He's also a complete moron in the show, whereas in the book he was internal and introverted but still intelligent and capable.
   
   
3. Arya is also completely different to the character from the books. She hasn't witnessed all the traumatic events she saw in ACoK, there was no Weasel Soup, and she didn't kill the guard herself.
   
   
4. Daenerys locked her handmaiden in a vault, lost her dragons, did not receive the prophecies from the Undying, etc. These have all contributed to making her a very different character now.
   
   
5. Sansa's relationship with the Hound was very weak in the show, and they've cut out most of the references to songs/knights/chivalry etc that comprise such a huge part of Sansa's arc in the books. Without Dontos she also appears far more passive than in the books.
   
   
6. Tyrion did not play a role in the rape of Tysha, he has not abused/assaulted Shae, he didn't threaten to hurt Tommen, the Antler Men were cut, etc. He's completely whitewashed.
   
   
7. Bran is different too, although I admit that the majority of the changes are due to the age change. However, his dreams of knighthood and his immaturity/struggle to cope with his disablity were missing from season two.
   

If you don't think these qualify as "butchered" than that's fine. But they are certainly different from the books in a negative way, yes? And the majority will certainly have a negative impact on the story going forward.

[ckongo]

That's the thing, isn't it? Stating one is reasonable doesn't make it so. I've read countless posts by self-professed "reasonable purists" who "understand that changes must be made" that then ignorantly proceed to rage on every single change.

And you know what's even more hilarious? When those same purists talk about adapting material they themselves don't particularly like (especially parts of AFFC/ADWD), many suddenly have no qualms about "butchering" it. Meaning, these virtuous purists are pure only insofar as books follow their wishes. They are essentially (not all of them, of course) pretty hypocritical and self-absorbed. Arguing with them is hard, not to mention unproductive.

Yes, there are some things that are so subjective that people will always argue about it. One of the complaints that I think purists are being too harsh on is "character development." It's very hard to do this in the way purists would like in comparison to the books. There is far less time for it, and no internal monologue. I myself have never complained about Arya, Jon, or even Tyrion's (to hear some tell it) "white-washed" character in the second season. I get most upset when they add plots/scenes while omitting others. For example, in the last episode there was quite a bit of screen time regarding Margery's charity. It is mentioned in the books, but not to the extent it was in the show. I don't know why they felt the need to draw it out with several scenes.

[protar]

That's the thing, isn't it? Stating one is reasonable doesn't make it so. I've read countless posts by self-professed "reasonable purists" who "understand that changes must be made" that then ignorantly proceed to rage on every single change.

And you know what's even more hilarious? When those same purists talk about adapting material they themselves don't particularly like (especially parts of AFFC/ADWD), many suddenly have no qualms about "butchering" it. Meaning, these virtuous purists are pure only insofar as books follow their wishes. They are essentially (not all of them, of course) pretty hypocritical and self-absorbed. Arguing with them is hard, not to mention unproductive.

Disagreeing with you is not raging as much as you might think so. It's simply a differing opinion. Us purists don't like it when changes are made for no reasons. When changes actually have logical reasons such as budget (e.g Blackwater) or turn the books into something that works better on TV (e.g Theon) there are hardly any complaints. The fact is that most changes actually cost more time and budget (e.g Ros) or turn the books into something we feel works less well on TV (e.g Talisa).

AFFC/ADWD is simply an area of the books where changes are going to be more necessary and understandable. There's nothing hypocritical about suggesting changes there.

[Khal-a-bunga]

That's just asinine (such a lovely word you've introduced needlessly into the conversation).

Her telling her friends as they stare at horror, "What? Oh, the rain will wash it off" wasn't nor needn't be internal monologue. The idea that we witness her suffering and watching constant suffering around her, the way it hardens her, can absolutely be conveyed on a television show. That's just weird to think it can't be.

I love the confidence with which people are willing to say "This can't be done or this can't be done or it wouldn't work", as if they have somehow avoided the last twenty years of television, the sixty years of film. If it can be conceived, it can be achieved, if the writers and the actors are up for it.

Except I never said that it couldn't be done, but that it couldn't possibly have the same impact on a television audience as it did when we were reading the book. There is a different ebb and flow to television, as I'm sure you're aware, so I'm not understanding how you can't see why this particular element has been delayed. Not that you have to agree with it, obviously, but what's "asinine" is that people can't possibly comprehend how some things will work out simply because things didn't happen as they did in the books.

EDIT:

I'll just leave this here...

http://winteriscoming.net/2013/04/episode-22-dark-wings-dark-words-analysis/

The first few paragraphs being of particular importance with regards to this discussion.

[Blutrabe]

I watch the series after reading the books, and yes, certain things anoy the hell out of me. I would say though that thre are a couple different types of book purism:

1) People who dislike any change from the source material. If one character is ommitted, or changed, or something tweaked you will hear it.

2) People who will give latitude to changes to make adaptions for tv purposes, but are upset by what they feel are core changes to the story.

Personally I fall more in line with type 2. There are a lot of changes that dont bother me, but there are different changes that set my teeth on edge. The changes to Jon, and the change to Robbs storyline really bug me, not because they are different, because it fundamentally changes who the characters were and what their stories mean. For me, Robb was a character who destroyed himself trying not to not follow in the path of his parents. A tragic character dragged down by the ghosts of a past he was never allowed to understand. Jon is just not even the same person, with defining characteristics being flipped on his head. Its like watching another character in the same plot line, Thats more the uncanny valley issue, it looks the same but its just fundamentally off.

Oh, I just thought you were describing me.

[Independent George]

If you don't think these qualify as "butchered" than that's fine. But they are certainly different from the books in a negative way, yes? And the majority will certainly have a negative impact on the story going forward.

The problem is not with your individual criticisms - but that it's incredibly condescending to argue that all of those points are objectively wrong, as opposed your personal opinion, and your explicit statement that anyone who disagrees must be less knowledgeable than you.

I disagree with many elements of the adaptation - and but they are inevitably different than others' issues with the adaptation, and I can only make the case for my opinions, and not simply dismiss anyone else's ideas out of hand.

I can give you a specific counterexample: the whitewashing of Tyrion.

I actually agree with you that he's whitewashed, but I can think of an easy explanation of why it might not be the problem you think it is. First, while there's no mention of his raping Tysha thus far, there's no reason to believe he won't admit it later, in Season 4. Think about it - doesn't it become an even bigger stomach punch if Jaime confesses in the dungeon that Tysha was no whore, and then answers Tyrion lashes out and reveals that he himself joined in the rape? Doesn't that make for an even more dramatic reveal?

Likewise, given what we've seen of his relationship with Shae thus far, what if we see her coerced into testimony by Cersei in S4? What if they make another change to the story where Shae is explicitly threatened by Cersei, and coerced into giving false testimony for fear of her own life? And then, in S4E10, we see Tyrion strangle her to death thinking it was all a lie, and she'd done so purely for coin. Having never seen Tyrion abuse Shae to this point, it creates a much bigger contrast later on.

I don't know for sure that this is what they're going for. I hope it is - and if not, then I would probably agree with you that the changes were a mistake. My point is, neither of us knows where any of this is going yet, but you have immediately jumped to the "this can't work, they've butchered everything!" instead of considering an alternate possibilities.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister!]

Does Ros actually take up that much screen time? I only remember her from a couple scenes in season 2.

[Mr Fixit]

The "Arya argument".

I think Cogman gave a perfectly valid justification for that, one that has been repeated here time and again to no avail.

AGoT: 5 Arya chapters

ACoK: 10 Arya chapters

ASoS: 13 Arya chapters - of those only 2 post-RW

That's the long and short of it really.

If we assume Arya gets to Braavos at the end of S4 or the beginning of S5, the show will have only 2 book chapters to work with for the entire fourth season. The solution? To somewhat slow down Arya's character progression to account for two post-ACoK seasons instead of only one. Had D&D stayed 100% true to the books, Arya would run out of material in S4. And then what? In books you can have a (main) character disappear for a long time; on TV, not so much.

Essentially, book-Arya has 3 "sub-arcs" (AGoT-ACoK-ASoS), show-Arya will need 4. Therefore, her character arc has to be approached somewhat differently. Is that so hard to fathom?

[protar]

The "Arya argument".

I think Cogman gave a perfectly valid justification for that, one that has been repeated here time and again to no avail.

AGoT: 5 Arya chapters

ACoK: 10 Arya chapters

ASoS: 13 Arya chapters - of those only 2 post-RW

That's the long and short of it really.

If we assume Arya gets to Braavos at the end of S4 or the beginning of S5, the show will have only 2 book chapters to work with for the entire fourth season. The solution? To somewhat slow down Arya's character progression to account for two post-ACoK seasons instead of only one. Had D&D stayed 100% true to the books, Arya would run out of material in S4. And then what? In books you can have a (main) character disappear for a long time; on TV, not so much.

Essentially, book-Arya has 3 "sub-arcs" (AGoT-ACoK-ASoS), show-Arya will need 4. Therefore, her character arc has to be approached somewhat differently. Is that so hard to fathom?

But I just don't see how halting her development in S2 will give her any more material in S4. Killing the guard and killing the Tickler (or Polliver as it will be in the show I suppose.) are two completely different facets of Arya's development. One is a premeditated kill, the other is out of rage. She learns how to plan out her kills, but the Tickler demonstrates she still let's personal feelings get in the way, which is then further developed in AFFC/ADWD. Removing her kill in ACOK does not in any way give them any more material to work with imo.

[Mr Fixit]

Us purists don't like it when changes are made for no reasons. When changes actually have logical reasons such as budget (e.g Blackwater) or turn the books into something that works better on TV (e.g Theon) there are hardly any complaints.

You imply that changes don't have logical reasons, which is a problem in purist approach right there. What, are D&D trolling the audience? Getting kicks out of unreasonable and illogical changes just for the heck of it? Who is the arbiter on what changes are logical or illogical? I respect your opinion, Protar, as you seem a good sort with a well-argued stance. However, I've seen an X amount of posters hating on those very things you mentioned as examples of good adaptation - Blackwater and Theon.

I recall people hating the show for making Renly gay. I recall people accusing the show of butchering Stannis for sleeping with Melisandre. The list goes on and on.

[Mr Fixit]

But I just don't see how halting her development in S2 will give her any more material in S4. Killing the guard and killing the Tickler (or Polliver as it will be in the show I suppose.) are two completely different facets of Arya's development. One is a premeditated kill, the other is out of rage. She learns how to plan out her kills, but the Tickler demonstrates she still let's personal feelings get in the way, which is then further developed in AFFC/ADWD. Removing her kill in ACOK does not in any way give them any more material to work with imo.

Well, plot and character go hand in hand. They'll probably add some Arya material in S4 (with the Hound maybe or whatnot), but the same is true of her character arc. The show leads her down her projected path (more) gradually, because it has to do so over the course of 4 mini-arcs instead of 3.

[protar]

You imply that changes don't have logical reasons, which is a problem in purist approach right there. What, are D&D trolling the audience? Getting kicks out of unreasonable and illogical changes just for the heck of it? Who is the arbiter on what changes are logical or illogical? I respect your opinion, Protar, as you seem a good sort with a well-argued stance. However, I've seen an X amount of posters hating on those very things you mentioned as examples of good adaptation - Blackwater and Theon.

I recall people hating the show for making Renly gay. I recall people accusing the show of butchering Stannis for sleeping with Melisandre. The list goes on and on.

Obviously D+D are not (I hope) trolling the audience, but certainly they've made changes simply because they thought it would be cool. The reason Talisa is from Volantis is because they'd just read ADWD and thought Volantis was so awesome that they just couldn't wait to put it in or so I heard. Enthusiasm for the books? check. An unbiased, focused approach to adaptation? Not really. Some things are subjective in their necessity, some things however are rather inarguably unnecessary.

As to complaints about the BW or (even worse) about stuff that's already in the books, I don't really think these are anything more than fringe complaints. Most of the regular posters are rather balanced and reasonable imo because lets be honest, anyone who does nothing but post trite, aggressive comments will usually be banned pretty quickly, or get tired of everyone disagreeing with them and leave by themselves. I think that after the like 90% faithfulness of season 1, season 2 was a big shock which resulted in an awful lot of understandable rage. After a year to cool down and have a bit more perspective I am hopeful that discussion of S3 will be a bit cooler.

[protar]

Well, plot and character go hand in hand. They'll probably add some Arya material in S4 (with the Hound maybe or whatnot), but the same is true of her character arc. The show leads her down her projected path (more) gradually, because it has to do so over the course of 4 mini-arcs instead of 3.

But there's still not enough plot to contextualise all that development in. If they're doing the same development arc in the books but slowed down, then we can assume that Arya will get to kill someone in a premeditated fashion. But that means inventing new material which all too easily could just looked tacked on for the sake of action to viewers who don't analyse character arcs as much and could seem like filler. One solution off the top of my head would be to have Arya assassinate some Freys, but I guess we'll see whatever D+D come up with.

[Ran]

Arya's two post-RW chapters provide enough material for four or five appearances in the course of S4,quite easily.

Immediate post-RW aftermath -- wolf dream, mother's dead body.

Travel to the Mountains of the Moon

Sojourn in the village before Sandor's past catches up with him and they're outcast again.

Approach to the Inn at the Crossroad

Polliver and co.

Aftermath of that, Sandor's increasing fever.

Decision to abandon him.

Saltpans and the ship to Braavos.

Four notable character beats. Four notable story beats.

That's not bad.