[BOOK SPOILERS] TV Series Improvements on the Story?

[Le Cygne]

Now, now. Let's not be snarky here.

I agree with the two posters, Rory is a fantastic actor, and actually his reveal to Sansa would have flowed a lot better than Paedo Baelish sliding along beside her. The Hound's reveal is definitely not clumsy, whereas the latter, to an extent, definitely is.

This. I like reading what they say. If we all had the same opinions on everything, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

But in hindsight, re-reading GoT, his confession is more intimate than their relationship warranted at that point in the narrative. It was exposition that shouldn't have come out of his mouth yet. Totally understandable when you've just started writing a character that has not yet totally revealed himself to you (by you, I mean GRRM).

The Hound himself instantly wished he hadn't revealed so much of himself. And yet he was compelled to do so. That's the finely drawn part, that's where GRRM shows his great skill as a writer. As a reader, you see this push and pull within a character, in the span of a few moments, and you ask, why? What's going on here? And you have to read on to see what's happening to this character, but now he's got the reader's attention.

But back to the OT, according to them, they planned to have him tell the story on the show, but there were weather issues, so they had to wrap things up quickly. I think they tucked him telling his own story into the tournament scene and scrapped the other. As The Mountain That Posts suggested, it would have been better to leave that for later. They ended up having less footage in season 1 than they needed, and scrambled to write more scenes.

[Pinkie Baelish]

Though I may not agree with the change, I can definitely see why they had LF tell Sansa the Hound's burns story. They were never going to tease a romance between Sandor and Sansa, given the vast age difference between McCann and Turner. Having LF tell Sansa the story also helps in the long run, as it can be seen as LF's ploy to get Sansa to have some semblance of trust in him. Which is why I'm ok with the change, since it's fodder for the creepy relationship LF and Sansa will later have.

[Weeping Sore]

This. I like reading what they say. If we all had the same opinions on everything, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

The Hound himself instantly wished he hadn't revealed so much of himself. And yet he was compelled to do so. That's the finely drawn part, that's where GRRM shows his great skill as a writer. As a reader, you see this push and pull within a character, in the span of a few moments, and you ask, why? What's going on here? And you have to read on to see what's happening to this character, but now he's got the reader's attention.

But back to the OT, according to them, they planned to have him tell the story on the show, but there were weather issues, so they had to wrap things up quickly. I think they tucked him telling his own story into the tournament scene and scrapped the other. As The Mountain That Posts suggested, it would have been better to leave that for later. They ended up having less footage in season 1 than they needed, and scrambled to write more scenes.

It's a minor point- I'm glad it worked for you. My internalized version of the Hound would never tell that story to anybody. If he knew how to share, he wouldn't have to murder people. But to each their own.

[rystine]

I realize I'm somewhat late to the discussion, but I'll put forward one place where I definitely think the show improved on the books.

In season 1 episode 3, when Ned arrives in Kings Landing and goes to meet with the small council he first passes through the throne room where he has a confrontation with Jaime that didn't happen in the book. Jaime and Ned have a verbal spat in which Jaime tries to justify why his killing the Mad King was the right thing to do. And it ends with Ned telling Jaime "You served while serving was safe."

That single line, IMHO, does a great deal to add depth to Ned's character.

In the book we're basically led to believe that Ned despises Jaime's act of killing Aerys is based purely on the fact that Jaime broke his oath as a kingsguard. But that one line in the show introduces us to the idea that Ned doesn't necessarily hate him simply for breaking his vow, but that he hates him because he believes that Jaime should have done something sooner.

Ned knows that Jaime knew the Mad King was evil and had to be killed. But to Ned, Jaime didn't do anything to stop Aerys until the point in time that Jaime realized there would be no consequences for his actions.

Why did Jaime sit by while Aerys had dozens, even hundreds, of innocents burned alive? Why didn't Jaime stop Aerys when he raped his wife so many times? Why did Jaime not do anything until his father was literally on the doorstep and he knew that if he took action against Aerys he would not face any punishment?

That scene and that one line goes a long way towards making Ned a deeper and more intriguing character. And I for one am of the opinion that it was a definite improvement of the character of Ned from the books.

[Miodrag]

But really, you're perfectly entitled to find nothing on the show to be an improvement over the books, but then you should post only one comment on this thread, namely, "This thread has no reason for existence. You are all fools. FOOLS!"

Thanks for lecturing. And for serving as The Lord Protector of this thread. Without people like you, internet discussions in their fragility would always be an easy prey for sharks with differing opinions like me. The universe would collapse under the weight of few not-entirely-on-topic posts, no doubt.

And please, continue to heed advices from Mr. Objectivity over there. You know, a fellow who, for starters, posts a petty attempt to insult Patrick and me, but then later admits he actually agrees “to an extent” with what we’re saying. It doesn’t get more objective than that, I guess. (When other posters challenged him, and remembering how much he likes to be challenged, for a moment I was really afraid he’d agree with us all the way, which would’ve been just too much and too conflicting for my so non-objective nature.)

[Queen of Whores]

- Ser Rodrik's execution by the hand of Theon was an incredible decision and I much prefered him dying by Theon than such scum as Ramsay. The line 'I'm off to see your father' had me nearly tearing up. Perfect scene.

- Robert's conversation with Cersei showed that Robert wasn't a completely brainless brute, but showed the heavy burden of the crown and his deep but misguided love for Lyanna. A highlight of season 1 to me.

I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of any at the moment. Obviously the ratio of book material being better than show material is very high though, no matter what.

[Weeping Sore]

Thanks for lecturing. And for serving as The Lord Protector of this thread. Without people like you, internet discussions in their fragility would always be an easy prey for sharks with differing opinions like me. The universe would collapse under the weight of few not-entirely-on-topic posts, no doubt.

And please, continue to heed advices from Mr. Objectivity over there. You know, a fellow who, for starters, posts a petty attempt to insult Patrick and me, but then later admits he actually agrees "to an extent" with what we're saying. It doesn't get more objective than that, I guess. (When other posters challenged him, and remembering how much he likes to be challenged, for a moment I was really afraid he'd agree with us all the way, which would've been just too much and too conflicting for my so non-objective nature.)

Without the frisson of disagreement, posting on this forum would hold little appeal. I just think if you were being completely honest (with yourself?), you would find one moment, no matter how small, in 30 hours of television that for some reason struck you more than its equivalent in the books because of some minor change. Other posters here have provided better examples than I have. And finding one moment that was improved is not tantamount to saying "The show is better than the books," which I for one would never say. (I could probably even find a moment in a wretched adaptation like David Lynch's Dune that I liked better than what was on the page, but it wouldn't mean I liked the movie better) So I'm throwing down the (lobstered) gauntlet. Find that moment, or I will forever cast you as the heavy shouting "FOOLS!"

ETA: I' ve got a better example than Dune, which really is the worst of both worlds- only comprehensible to readers but guaranteed to piss any reader off because it's so divergent and silly. Say this was a newspaper forum in praise of Frank L Baum's Oz books. It's 1939, The Wizard of Oz movie comes out, and of course the forum is dominated by those who prefer the original source material. (rightly so) But someone suggests a topic of "Anything you liked better about the movie?" Wouldn't it be a shame to be sitting in the audience, arms folded, refusing to enjoy "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" just because it wasn't in the book? You're not that guy, right NotYourSir?

[Weeping Sore]

I realize I'm somewhat late to the discussion, but I'll put forward one place where I definitely think the show improved on the books.

In season 1 episode 3, when Ned arrives in Kings Landing and goes to meet with the small council he first passes through the throne room where he has a confrontation with Jaime that didn't happen in the book. Jaime and Ned have a verbal spat in which Jaime tries to justify why his killing the Mad King was the right thing to do. And it ends with Ned telling Jaime "You served while serving was safe."

That single line, IMHO, does a great deal to add depth to Ned's character.

In the book we're basically led to believe that Ned despises Jaime's act of killing Aerys is based purely on the fact that Jaime broke his oath as a kingsguard. But that one line in the show introduces us to the idea that Ned doesn't necessarily hate him simply for breaking his vow, but that he hates him because he believes that Jaime should have done something sooner.

Ned knows that Jaime knew the Mad King was evil and had to be killed. But to Ned, Jaime didn't do anything to stop Aerys until the point in time that Jaime realized there would be no consequences for his actions.

Why did Jaime sit by while Aerys had dozens, even hundreds, of innocents burned alive? Why didn't Jaime stop Aerys when he raped his wife so many times? Why did Jaime not do anything until his father was literally on the doorstep and he knew that if he took action against Aerys he would not face any punishment?

That scene and that one line goes a long way towards making Ned a deeper and more intriguing character. And I for one am of the opinion that it was a definite improvement of the character of Ned from the books.

:agree: Very perceptive post. I had not consciously noticed this difference.

[Syrio.Forel]

The only mistake they really have done was shown MORE SYRIO FOREL!!!!

No, but I'm actually digging the showing of Theon's transformation to Reek. I don't like certain things (like how he just out of the blue came up with the name), but them showing it while we know the end point is pretty cool. Also, anyone think Melisandre got Edric's blood the same way in the books as Gendry's in the show? Certain parts of the show entertain me as so much happens off-screen, and the show will maybe go that route so I feel the books and the show compliment each other...

[Miodrag]

Without the frisson of disagreement, posting on this forum would hold little appeal. I just think if you were being completely honest (with yourself?), you would find one moment, no matter how small, in 30 hours of television that for some reason struck you more than its equivalent in the books because of some minor change. Other posters here have provided better examples than I have. And finding one moment that was improved is not tantamount to saying "The show is better than the books," which I for one would never say. (I could probably even find a moment in a wretched adaptation like David Lynch's Dune that I liked better than what was on the page, but it wouldn't mean I liked the movie better) So I'm throwing down the (lobstered) gauntlet. Find that moment, or I will forever cast you as the heavy shouting "FOOLS!"

ETA: I' ve got a better example than Dune, which really is the worst of both worlds- only comprehensible to readers but guaranteed to piss any reader off because it's so divergent and silly. Say this was a newspaper forum in praise of Frank L Baum's Oz books. It's 1939, The Wizard of Oz movie comes out, and of course the forum is dominated by those who prefer the original source material. (rightly so) But someone suggests a topic of "Anything you liked better about the movie?" Wouldn't it be a shame to be sitting in the audience, arms folded, refusing to enjoy "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" just because it wasn't in the book? You're not that guy, right NotYourSir?

Oh boy, you keep on lecturing! You reproach me for not doing something? For failing... whom? What? Homework? In shape of an internet thread?! That has to be the first ever. It’s comforting to know I’m in good company, though: earlier today, you lectured Martin, too. “GRRM written Sandor out of character, but it's understandable, because he didn't know Sandor that well back then”. That reasoning was undoubtedly the historical first of it's kind. And you think it's me who's not completely honest, to myself at least?!

Now, allow me to explain something to you. You’re welcomed to cast me however you find fit. See, there’s a number of posters on this forums – book purists, show lovers, old-timers, newcomers – I’d hate to disappoint. You are not one of them.

Allow me to help you, even. Cause, you’re not exactly successful in this “Protecting the thread” thing you’re trying to pull: my posts that came after your intervention will soon outnumber those I posted up to that point. Now, it’s obvious I didn’t post a single insulting or otherwise inappropriate comment (not even regarding Talisa, a character I otherwise enjoy to harshly mock the creation of), but, in all honesty, other posters on this thread – and especially young lady who started it – really don’t have to suffer through this argument between you and me. So, I’m out, unless you refer to me again. If you really want to protect this thread from me, all you have to do is not to mention me any more. And, before you ask, this applies only to this thread. The rest of the internet is yours and mine to argue on. With your views and your attitude, I’m positive we’ll meet again very soon.

P.S. By the way, had you bothered to check, you’d see I actually named one thing I liked in the show, that wasn’t in the books. More precisely, I agreed with another poster. Even tried to figure out how it could be added in the books. This thread, page five. If only you checked. But, you’re not that guy, right?

[Weeping Sore]

Oh boy, you keep on lecturing! You reproach me for not doing something? For failing... whom? What? Homework? In shape of an internet thread?! That has to be the first ever. It’s comforting to know I’m in good company, though: earlier today, you lectured Martin, too. “GRRM written Sandor out of character, but it's understandable, because he didn't know Sandor that well back then”. That reasoning was undoubtedly the historical first of it's kind. And you think it's me who's not completely honest, to myself at least?!

Now, allow me to explain something to you. You’re welcomed to cast me however you find fit. See, there’s a number of posters on this forums – book purists, show lovers, old-timers, newcomers – I’d hate to disappoint. You are not one of them.

Allow me to help you, even. Cause, you’re not exactly successful in this “Protecting the thread” thing you’re trying to pull: my posts that came after your intervention will soon outnumber those I posted up to that point. Now, it’s obvious I didn’t post a single insulting or otherwise inappropriate comment (not even regarding Talisa, a character I otherwise enjoy to harshly mock the creation of), but, in all honesty, other posters on this thread – and especially young lady who started it – really don’t have to suffer through this argument between you and me. So, I’m out, unless you refer to me again. If you really want to protect this thread from me, all you have to do is not to mention me any more. And, before you ask, this applies only to this thread. The rest of the internet is yours and mine to argue on. With your views and your attitude, I’m positive we’ll meet again very soon.

P.S. By the way, had you bothered to check, you’d see I actually named one thing I liked in the show, that wasn’t in the books. More precisely, I agreed with another poster. Even tried to figure out how it could be added in the books. This thread, page five. If only you checked. But, you’re not that guy, right?

You totally did! "Baelor" Well, I've got egg on my face. I'm not sure what it is about you that gives me the urge to provoke. Anyway, I was in the wrong and will strive to read any of your future posts with an open mind.

(The Wizard of Oz parrallel made me think, they really "white-washed" the Tin Woodman for the movie. In the book, he chops the heads off of 40 wolves!)

[Commander Jon Snow]

Littlefinger vs Varys is one established rivalry in the show that I love. Hell, one of my friends who hasn't read the books thinks that the entire Game of THrones is a chess match between Petry and Varys

[Commander Jon Snow]

Littlefinger vs Varys is one established rivalry in the show that I love. Hell, one of my friends who hasn't read the books thinks that the entire Game of THrones is a chess match between Petry and Varys

[Theda Baratheon]

Goodness me, the scent of this thread is rife with patronising.

[Weeping Sore]

I really liked the meeting between Thoros and Melisandre this season. Her surprise/envy when Thoros revealed what the Lord of Light had accomplished through him. But I could have extra scenes with Paul Kaye as Thoros all day.

[PatrickStormborn]

I really liked the meeting between Thoros and Melisandre this season. Her surprise/envy when Thoros revealed what the Lord of Light had accomplished through him. But I could have extra scenes with Paul Kaye as Thoros all day.

I wasn't keen on that scene, considering that Melisandre was most likely revived in the same way that Beric was.

[TalalOfDorne]

I wasn't keen on that scene, considering that Melisandre was most likely revived in the same way that Thoros was.

Sorry, but what do you mean by revive?

[PatrickStormborn]

Sorry, but what do you mean by revive?

Sorry - I meant Beric.

There's a popular theory that Melisandre is not actually "alive", in which case she probably would have been revived like Beric was.

[Weeping Sore]

Sorry - I meant Beric.

There's a popular theory that Melisandre is not actually "alive", in which case she probably would have been revived like Beric was.

She's always warm, she doesn't have to eat or really sleep. It makes sense. But maybe the transformation doesn't exactly mean that she's undead- maybe she's become a creature of fire more analagous to the Others rather than the Wights which had to die first?

Forgive me, I've only heard passing references to the theory.

[Pinkie Baelish]

Goodness me, the scent of this thread is rife with patronising.

My, aren't you clever for picking that up?