(Book and Show Spoilers) Does anyone think the show portrays some characters more positively then the books?

[Weeping Sore]

Sorry, but I haven't seen the film, nor read the book. Recommendation is duly noted, however. Will report back when there's something to report.

Was not trying to be obscure- just something to belie the point that screen adaptations are inherently limited. There is that rare occasion when text and screen complement each other perfectly.

[silentwanderer]

Podrick doesn't have the same reputation in the book as he did in the TV show.

And Margaery is smarter in the show than she sounds on the books.

[The Idiots Lantern]

And Margaery is smarter in the show than she sounds on the books.

Margaery in the books is an innocent Sansa-style character who's ladylike and a puppet in the hands of her family.

Maergery in the show is clearly playing the Game herself, and playing it kinda aggressively and well. And she can manipulate Joffery, which has Cersei terrified.

Expect a plotline next season where Margeary tries moving Joffery towards being a slightly less crappy king. She might even be successful for a while. But the purple wedding will happen anyway.

[six]

Expect a plotline next season where Margeary tries moving Joffery towards being a slightly less crappy king. She might even be successful for a while. But the purple wedding will happen anyway.

I think we're done with the Marg/Joff storyline, they won't wait that long for the PW. And if they did, it would be a mistake.

This, too. I thought she was much more interesting in the books. Why do all the characters have to be likable? How does that make it a better story? I think it makes it a worse one.

This was exactly my point. I have a hard time understanding why people associate sympathetic with better, whenever it's not the case. Both literature and tv/films have shown that a character doesn't need to be either morally good or sympathetic to be likable, as many characters can be incredibly compelling and entertaining for the very reason they're not sympathetic.

[Miodrag]

I think what we're running into with purists like yourself is an extraordinarily high threshold of justification for any change, whereas someone like myself is going along saying "Hmm. I guess that works too," which I'm sure is aggravating from your perspective.

Yesterday I forgot to reply to this, and, in a way, you're right about extraordinary high threshold of justification. Two small, but important corrections, though.

1) It's not as high as it may sound at first. They replaced Vargo with Locke. I can't see a single reason for that from the narrative point of view - the concept of sellswords was to be introduced anyway (only a little later, in Dany's story), and Vargo's complicated backstory from the books could've been simplified, or removed even. Nor I see a budgetary reason, for that matter, cause Locke's bunch surely didn't cost less than Vargo's would. And I really like Vargo. But, guess what: I'm quite OK with Locke, because he's written seriously and acted even more seriously. I can't see a single 'justification' for this change, but not everything needs to be justified in an adaptation. The most important thing is that Locke preserved the tone and the spirit of the books, even though he didn't preserve neither of Vargo (cause Vargo couldn't care less about social injustice, and Locke seems to be overwhelmingly motivated by his contempt for it). Locke had time to 'breathe' as a character, we could see and understand his reasons, we saw what made him tick. And what we saw wasn't some juvenile attempt at humor, nor cliched simplification, nor an arrogant exercise in "witty writing" that authors hope would fish them a reward or two (those exercises really vex me most; like the common folks wisdom Bronn keeps delivering left and right; or Cersei's "That's what ruling is: lying on a bed of weeds, ripping them out one by one, before they strangle you in your sleep"; or Qhorin's "You start thinking you know this place, it will kill you"; Martin and other great writers manage to write smart stuff without such glorified banalities - because they don't glorify banalities; it's that simple, really, and yet, it keeps escaping D&D).

Season 1 Tywin is a similar case. Book Tywin, as I recall, wasn't into lecturing everyone about the legacy of a family, and TV Tywin was from the very start, but it doesn't contradict tone and spirit of the books. And on top of that, S1 Tywin even sounded witty, like award-fishing witty; but, at least, he was like that with his son, and not with a mysterious Northern girl he keeps catching in lies. So, it's all about preserving the tone and the spirit of the source material, even if there is no 'justification' for a change.

2) It applies to everything, not only to changes, nor adaptations. I'm not in love with ASOIAF because of it's addictive and shocking nature. I see, or at least sense, a reason behind everything in the series. Without that, frankly, I wouldn't read a series with this much misery and agony in it. Red Wedding is the best example. As the endpoint in Cat's tragedy, RW makes all the sense in the world. If the main theme of first three books is the devastation of the institution of a family, then RW through Cat's eyes drives the theme home perfectly. It delivers the punch as shocking as any along the way, but it's not just about the shock. Remove "Family, duty, honor" Cat from the center of it, and what do you see? I'd see nothing but shock there, possibly with some banal and cynical morality like "it's better to keep a promise than to love in a world as dangerous as this one is". That I wouldn't like at all. (And that is what unsullied viewers got, and I suspect they're not going to like it any more, once the shock fades away. As I said last year, the decision to remove the grief over Bran and Rickon from Cat/Robb storyline will keep biting D&D in the ass.) No matter how shocking (or "paraliterature", as someone called it) the material is, I need to recognize some sort of justification in it in order to love and respect it. Martin presented me with all that, and in a superb way, and in a scale that is perhaps unparalleled. (And that's why I expected the adaptation of ASOIAF to be much more than just a shock therapy, which, sadly, it turned into long time ago.)

What was that about brevity you said?

[Pinkie Baelish]

The change from Vargo to Locke was IIRC, based on Martin's insistence, as D and D wanted to simplify things and make him a Bolton bannerman. I can't find a source, but Martin asked them to change it as Vargo Hoat clearly wasn't a Westerosi. I think the same thing happened with changing Jeyne to Talisa.

[Miodrag]

The change from Vargo to Locke was IIRC, based on Martin's insistence, as D and D wanted to simplify things and make him a Bolton bannerman. I can't find a source, but Martin asked them to change it as Vargo Hoat clearly wasn't a Westerosi. I think the same thing happened with changing Jeyne to Talisa.

Please, let's not put Locke and Talisa in the same category. The latter is an abomination, the creation of which I despise with all the fury of seven hells. "YOU ANGRY WITH ME?" That's what she asks Robb after she tells him she's pregnant! For the love of god, I could never ever fathom the reasoning behind this line, in a world without contraception (other than that tea), and in a society that is yet to invent something like "family planning", and in a family that desperately needs an heir, and in a marriage that clearly doesn't lack sex. There is nothing, literally nothing, not a single line in all ASOIAF, that is as stupid as this line is. It's matched only by her lines from Season 2. For Locke I don't know, you're probably right, I mean, didn't read about it, but I believe you. But I know what Martin and D&D said about Talisa, and I'd say it goes way deeper than name change based on a different origin of a character. If I was named Talisa, I'd sue HBO for what they did to my name. Martin ultimately asked them to change her name, because that was probably the most elegant way to completely and eternally disconnect himself from that on-screen abomination.

[Le Cygne]

This was exactly my point. I have a hard time understanding why people associate sympathetic with better, whenever it's not the case. Both literature and tv/films have shown that a character doesn't need to be either morally good or sympathetic to be likable, as many characters can be incredibly compelling and entertaining for the very reason they're not sympathetic.

Yes, that's so true.

And this, too, about why the female characters are shown less positively on the show. The show makes their stories about men. Cersei's story became Joffrey's story on the show (don't look at me, she says tearfully, wringing her hands, Joffrey did everything). Catelyn's story became Robb's (yes, she's a good mother, but in the books she's a smart capable player Robb relies upon). Sansa's story became Tyrion's and no doubt Littlefinger's next season (yes, she's naive, but in the books, she is smart enough to deliberately play along to survive, and she has her own inner life, where she's exploring what she wants and reflecting on what she's learned, and she is growing stronger). And now I fear Brienne's story will be about Jaime (no brave journey of a true knight through the dark night of Westeros for her, will she walk ten paces behind Jaime, or rescue Gendry's plot?)

[Le Cygne]

Sorry posted this on another thread...

[David Selig]

The suggestion that Catelyn was whitewashed made me laugh, same for the fact that the OP didn't even mention Saint Tyrion who barely resembles the book character in terms of morality.

Sure, Catelyn's portrayal was screwed up big time, but not because of whitewashing. TV Catelyn prayed for the death of a baby because she was jealous of his mother. That's much worse than anything bar murdering Jinglebells Book Catelyn ever did, way worse than "You should've been you".

[Le Cygne]

Catelyn wasn't whitewashed, she was whited out.

"The books aren't so important anymore"!

When the series started, I read the first one, and then read the second. But then I realized that they weren’t sticking to the novels, that there were aspects that they used and not others. But I used the books as references as it’s an insight into the mind of the character. Though, that said, sometimes David and Dan don’t want that particular insight… so the scripts are the bible, and the books aren’t so important anymore.

http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Features/Entry/9907

[Miodrag]

Catelyn wasn't whitewashed, she was whited out.

"The books aren't so important anymore"!

http://www.westeros....ures/Entry/9907

What a quote. Thanks for reminding me. That interview, and Neil Marshal's from last year, an recent Natalie Dormer interview, and bunch of other stuff that surfaces here and there, make me realize D&D aren't even fans of the novels any more. They probably were at the beginning of the process, but now, I don't think so. Now they're much more in love with the industry, and HBO, and ratings, and 'realities' of TV production, than with those fat printed objects Bryan Cogman keeps mentioning to them.

[brian_177]

What a quote. Thanks for reminding me. That interview, and Neil Marshal's from last year, an recent Natalie Dormer interview, and bunch of other stuff that surfaces here and there, make me realize D&D aren't even fans of the novels any more. They probably were at the beginning of the process, but now, I don't think so. Now they're much more in love with the industry, and HBO, and ratings, and 'realities' of TV production, than with those fat printed objects Bryan Cogman keeps mentioning to them.

Look--if you look for something to take issue you with in almost any adaptation from any medium to another you will be successful. But isn't that annoying? Why watch the show at all? I go into any adaptation from book to screen knowing full well that there will likely be significant changes to both plot and characters. If I wanted a shot by shot remake of the book (which for narrative reasons would be very difficult, just like a page for page movie version of the Lord of the Rings wouldn't have worked at all), I'd just re-read the books.

[Miodrag]

Look--if you look for something to take issue you with in almost any adaptation from any medium to another you will be successful. But isn't that annoying? Why watch the show at all? I go into any adaptation from book to screen knowing full well that there will likely be significant changes to both plot and characters. If I wanted a shot by shot remake of the book (which for narrative reasons would be very difficult, just like a page for page movie version of the Lord of the Rings wouldn't have worked at all), I'd just re-read the books.

Logically, this comment of yours is unsustainable. Because, it cuts both ways: why are you reading my posts if my views annoy you so much? Why should you even care for my views in that case? And, even if you happen to read them accidentally, why on Earth would my post influence your viewing experience in any way?

But, let's put that all aside. I'm sure you didn't want to be rude, but to say something in the defense of D&D - whose professional wisdom and honor I did question a bit, true that. So, no harm done. Only, allow me to ask you something. Is there an adaptation you didn't like? Any at all? I'm sure there is. Care to name it, and write a reason of two for which you thought the adaptation was unsuccessful? Nothing expansive nor tiring, just, you know, a few lines on why you didn't like that particular adaptation. It can be literally anything, something I never read and/or watched; as long as your reasons are easy to understand.

[brian_177]

You mistake what I meant. To me it seems like it would be very annoying to constantly be nitpicking a show or a movie--to you, the person doing the scrutinizing. It seems like it would be a huge hinderance to immersing yourself in the story and sets you up to be continually disappointed. Sorry for the confusion.

To answer first question, an example I would give is the Eragon movie. Apart from being a bad movie, which its success is evidence enough to indicate, there were plenty of changes I thought were disappointing, such as making the Urgals basically human and relegating some characters that were awesome in the book to seconds of screen time. But it wasn't the changes from the source material that made me dislike it--though those definitely contribute--but rather the poor quality of the movie overall.

Now, I'm assuming that the question you posed is really just a poorly veiled, confrontational attempt at labeling me a 'fanboy.' I'm perfectly fine admitting that it would take some pretty major changes for me to swear off Game of Thrones, because I like it. Because it doesn't make all that much sense to me to watch a show for three seasons if I didn't. I haven't for example, watched the last two Twilight movies because I didn't enjoy the first ones--so why subject myself to a several more hours of something I already know I don't like?

Again, you're welcome to do whatever you want. There was no need to turn on the sarcasm. Maybe I'm confused and you do enjoy Game of Thrones, but it seems like you don't--and to me it would be annoying to watch a show week after week if I didn't like it.

Edit: To go back to the question.. As another example there are plenty of changes in Lord of the Rings that I really, really don't like. Frodo sending Sam away. Faramir being tempted by the ring. Galdalf being unsure of himself. Aragorn 'choosing exile.' However, I can see why they made these changes and overall they are still great movies--though as with most good adaptations from book to screen I always think that the books are better.

I think it's premature to toss David and Dan in the gutter as people who don't care about the books at all and who are making flippant changes to the story when none of us know how the story actually turns out. I'm perfectly fine, while being skeptical of some of the changes, with giving the show some leeway.

[Miodrag]

What I tried is to use your own argumentation against you, only in another case. Argumentation such as this: "No adaptation is perfect, they can never translate it 100 percent, some things just need to be changed because that's the nature of adaptations, but this one is among the best I've seen". One can defend any adaptation with that. Even Eragon. Had you written some more detailed complaints, you'd see. It's very easy to argue that way. That's what I wanted to show.

And really, I don't know what's so strange in watching AND criticizing GoT? Isn't it self-explanatory? I mean, is there anything similar in the whole world? You know, great novels usually don't get 10-hours TV adaptations. Nobody adapted Dostoyevsky that way, nor Tolstoy, nor Llosa, nor Bolano, nor Bulgakov, nor Homer, nor McCarthy... In fact, great novels rarely get adapted at all, film nor TV. Only a tiny part of them got their film versions, and TV adaptations are even more rare. And adaptations are never this long. Ten episodes per book? I can't think of anything similar, to be honest. So it's quite normal I'm stuck with GoT. For comparison, if someone's to adapt "The Brothers Karamazov" into ten episode TV show, and first episodes are a real disappointment, I'd continue to watch the show all the way through. Why not? I'm not afraid of being annoyed by a TV show. I won't die over it, nor loose weight god forbid. And if there happens to be an online forum that allows the exchange of impressions between viewers from around the world, I'd be as hooked as I'm here and now.

Only, there isn't such a thing. And there never was. This internet-crazy post-Sopranos era never happened before in human history. I might as well enjoy it.

And, while I don't know how Martin's story will eventually turn out, I don't think D&D are bothered with what they do know in that regard. But, I do know how the first five books turned out. And D&D adapted only half of it so far, so I'm on familiar territory. Expecting from them to preserve the spirit and tone of the novels is something I see no reason to give up, especially because what they're giving me instead of ASOIAF spirit and tone is really sub-par.

And I'm truly sorry for misunderstanding the nature your post. I just hope my response wasn't out of line.

[brian_177]

How about Pride and Prejudice? A fine book by all accounts, though I've never read it--and it's had multiple movies and TV series--and a zombie novel--most of which not very new.

Or the many adaptations of Shakespeare, some of them word for word, scene-for-scene, some of them merely based on the source material. When you're a Jet, you're a Jet.

Or the many Sherlock Holmes TV series, movies, 'Wishbone' episodes.

Maybe the list you gave hasn't been adapted in this same way because there simply isn't an audience for that kind of adaptation.... and not because society is purposely more respectful of a Tolstoy over a Martin.

You're totally right that you're welcome to nitpick and wish for things to be different. I hate Talisa, too. But suggesting that these changes indicate that David and Dan don't understand the source material or don't respect it is just silly. Who is it for us to say that we got it 'right' and David and Dan don't understand this character or that plotline? That's so boring. Why should any of us be slave to what the author intended? And I tend to think that David and Dan do have a very high level of respect for the novels since they have invested their careers into this project which is very likely to be their most lasting legacy.

I pose a question to you: what is the spirit and tone of the novels?

[Miodrag]

I hate Talisa, too.

You win, man. I yield.

Why should any of us be slave to what the author intended? And I tend to think that David and Dan do have a very high level of respect for the novels since they have invested their careers into this project which is very likely to be their most lasting legacy.

Spot on, once again. You're obviously slave to nobody.

I pose a question to you: what is the spirit and tone of the novels?

"Can a man still love ASOIAF if he's disappointed in it's adaptation?"

"That is the only way a man can love ASOIAF."

[Weeping Sore]

You know, great novels usually don't get 10-hours TV adaptations. Nobody adapted Dostoyevsky that way, nor Tolstoy, nor Llosa, nor Bolano, nor Bulgakov, nor Homer, nor McCarthy... In fact, great novels rarely get adapted at all, film nor TV. Only a tiny part of them got their film versions, and TV adaptations are even more rare. And adaptations are never this long. Ten episodes per book? I can't think of anything similar, to be honest.

Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980) dir. Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 13 hour series plus a two-hour coda adapting Alfred Doblin's 1929 novel of the same name.

The iconoclastic director realized his life-long dream to adapt the novel that "saved his life" as an adolescent. Fassbinder would die two years later at the age of 37.

ETA: Alright, now I'm just being annoying, sorry.

[Dragonstoned]

That's what makes this show so perplexing to draw a conclusion on. For all the nuances from the books they miss or deliberately omit, some of the stuff they do, such as Theon's fall from grace in season 2 has been so good that it's hard to deny that they understood the source material in those particular instances.

Pinkie, of all the show apologists you seem the most alright and I respect you as one Stannis fan to another, but don't you think you're giving too much credit to Theon's s2 arc? I liked it a lot too and there were numerous very good parts (pretty much all of What is Dead May Never Die, the beheading of Rodrik, it's too late for me to pretend to be anyone else, his speech in the finale) but the reveal of Bran's and Rickon's 'corpses' was a little bit rubbish, not to mention the pushing back of Ramsay Bolton who in Theon's last chapter gave one of the most memorable moments of the series which would have been no less brilliant on screen, the character instead being replaced for reasons which I still do not understand with some reworked Dagmer, and the scene changed to Theon getting knocked out and a cliffhanger that doesn't come off.

They clearly get the Theon stuff best of all (along maybe with Jaime, although I think in both instances they started the redemption arcs too early with them saying respectively my real father lost his head in King's Landing and we don't get to choose who we love - i.e. it's not enough to just have redemption, it needs to be built up to). Overall though their understanding of the books is pretty shaky to me. This sounds disrespectful but I was surprised to find out David Benioff is a novelist cos I can't see much of what he's co-written for GoT being published - I want to read City of Thieves to see if he's any better at writing books than he is at screenplays. Would also love to sit down and have a chat with them about ASoIaF, or better still if they posted on these forums.