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

[Mr Fixit]

But, even this tired, I still can't think of a single justification for Amory Lorch scene. Do you think book Tywin would ever act like that toward a general who did something like that? I don't. That has to be softening a character.

I think nothing of the Amory scene. It's a silly moment to be sure, but it's a long shot to draw far-reaching conclusions based on that. Chalk it up to some subpar writing.

[Miodrag]

I think nothing of the Amory scene. It's a silly moment to be sure, but it's a long shot to draw far-reaching conclusions based on that. Chalk it up to some subpar writing.

Well, there isn't that much material to draw far-reaching conclusions, so I think we pretty much have to draw them from scenes like that. D&D obviously didn't change major points in the story. They're not going to, say, have Jon escape NW once again and marry Ygritte. Nor is Jaime going to kill Joff. Hence, when judging their writing skills, I have to rely on details. I'm forced to nitpick.

Now, scenes they added don't satisfy me in general. Some are watchable, some enjoyable, but most of them don't capture my interest. Compared to Cogman, for example, they're not as good as he is. He also invented and added a lot of stuff, but his scenes fitted much better. Not every one of his scenes (that whole Stannis sequence in 03x05 I didn't like, especially dead infants) and his writing in 01x04 was one of the lowest in the series. But, when I analyse his entire contribution as a writer, I think he's done a very decent job.

D&D are, in my honest evaluation, bad at adapting. Maybe they're good as showrunners, in terms of budget and organization and everything. But, as writers they aren't great. In fact, Benioff may be a competent writer on his own (I liked his "25th hour", for example) but he's not that good in adaptations ("Troy" was a pretty big disappointment).

Last year, when I wrote that essay, just remember how many posters from this site accused me of terrible nitpicking, because of the fast-motioning scenes I noted. And strictly speaking, that's some tiny fragment of the show. But, here's my point: in every editing/filming school there is, that's like lesson 1: don't fuck with a screen. Allow me to elaborate. There are two so called layers. Layer 1 is the screen. Layer 2 is everything that happens on the other side of the screen. They are not one and only. They are strictly separated, for a good reason: for a viewer to 'buy' Layer 2, he/she first and foremost has to trust Layer 1. Hence, he/she has to be aware of every fucking thing you do with Layer 1. If a viewer accepts Layer 1 as something that won't ever lie to him/her, only then he/she can believe what he/she sees in Layer 2. Whatever you do with Layer 1, a viewer must know it. That's the theory. And that's why no show or film tried to pull what GoT tried with that fast-motioning. Nobody does that. Fast-motioning wasn't the problem. Covert fast-motioning was. A really, really big problem, because it goes against all the theory and all the experience of motion pictures.

Now, if I see what they've done with two tiny half-second scenes, and I know how wrong it is, and I know nobody ever done it the way they did, what am I to do? Am I to be OK with it, because it's only one second in total out of 30 hours? Or should I reach some conclusion?

I'm going home now. I'll be online in about one hour, maybe less, if anyone replies here and expects me to reply back.

[Mr Fixit]

("Troy" was a pretty big disappointment).

Ah, Troy. I don't like blockbusters in general, this one included. But I think Troy is a masterpiece compared to what comes out of Hollywood these days with 200 million price tags attached to it.

[Miodrag]

Ah, Troy. I don't like blockbusters in general, this one included. But I think Troy is a masterpiece compared to what comes out of Hollywood these days with 200 million price tags attached to it.

Of course. I mean, even a bad adaptation of Iliad is going to be better than super-hero flicks of today, and better than many high-drama stuff that wins Oscars and what not. Just like a bad adaptation of ASOIAF is going to be better than 90 percent of other TV shows.

And, since I'm on a roll, I'll never understand why some people react like they are criticized if their favorite book/movie/show is being criticized. A legion of fans here said that AFFC and ADWD are terrible books. And I happen to adore both of those books. And yet, I never thought that those who think AFFC/ADWD are terrible books, inevitably think that I'm also terrible at reading and understanding and analyzing. I debated with some of the firmest show-lovers. And I think the show is bad. And yet, I keep debating them over and over again, because I want to, as in, I'm taking their opinion very seriously, even though their opinion is completely opposite to mine.

Hope you'll see this isn't directed to you nor anyone in specific.

[Aeternum]

Oh yes, Roose is absolutely perfect! I believe that if he is given more screen time in the next seasons he will reach the Charles Dance level.

Tr00 dat. He is a really good character actor, and I've seen him in other things before. McElhatton is a total chameleon, just see him in this clip:

Anyways, we'll definitely see more of Roose on the show, especially after Season 4 when he takes over the role of "evil overlord" that Tywin leaves vacant after he dies on the toilet.

Oh, and Show!Roose isn't actually very different from Book!Roose in appearance. Although my avatar shows him with long hair, his hair is never described in the books, but given that he is a health freak, he should probably keep his hair short, like in the show. And he is also described as having a very unremarkable face, like Mike Mac's. The only difference is that Book!Roose speaks much softer and his eyes are lighter.

Yeah. I always pictured Roose with a clean-shaved face and short hair when I read the books (if only because of the visual contrast with the long-bearded, long-haired Northmen around him). Although the books bring up his "ghostly pale eyes" in almost every scene he appears, and his whispering voice, both of which are missing from the TV version.

Still, it's understandable that they wanted to tone down Roose's vampire traits and theatrical evilness in favor of a normal everyman appearance (the sort of normal white-collar guy who turns out to be a skin-flaying serial killer and his suburban neighbors are all surprised, because "you'd never expect it from a nice guy like him") that he keeps up most of the time, with only a few subtle hints of his sadistic nature.

(That said, "sadist" is a very arbitrary term, much like that infamous label "psychopath". I've yet to read about "psychopathic" behavior that is shockingly alien to the attitudinal norms and possibilities of the human species.)

[Weeping Sore]

Well, there isn't that much material to draw far-reaching conclusions, so I think we pretty much have to draw them from scenes like that. D&D obviously didn't change major points in the story. They're not going to, say, have Jon escape NW once again and marry Ygritte. Nor is Jaime going to kill Joff. Hence, when judging their writing skills, I have to rely on details. I'm forced to nitpick.

Now, scenes they added don't satisfy me in general. Some are watchable, some enjoyable, but most of them don't capture my interest. Compared to Cogman, for example, they're not as good as he is. He also invented and added a lot of stuff, but his scenes fitted much better. Not every one of his scenes (that whole Stannis sequence in 03x05 I didn't like, especially dead infants) and his writing in 01x04 was one of the lowest in the series. But, when I analyse his entire contribution as a writer, I think he's done a very decent job.

D&D are, in my honest evaluation, bad at adapting. Maybe they're good as showrunners, in terms of budget and organization and everything. But, as writers they aren't great. In fact, Benioff may be a competent writer on his own (I liked his "25th hour", for example) but he's not that good in adaptations ("Troy" was a pretty big disappointment).

Last year, when I wrote that essay, just remember how many posters from this site accused me of terrible nitpicking, because of the fast-motioning scenes I noted. And strictly speaking, that's some tiny fragment of the show. But, here's my point: in every editing/filming school there is, that's like lesson 1: don't fuck with a screen. Allow me to elaborate. There are two so called layers. Layer 1 is the screen. Layer 2 is everything that happens on the other side of the screen. They are not one and only. They are strictly separated, for a good reason: for a viewer to 'buy' Layer 2, he/she first and foremost has to trust Layer 1. Hence, he/she has to be aware of every fucking thing you do with Layer 1. If a viewer accepts Layer 1 as something that won't ever lie to him/her, only then he/she can believe what he/she sees in Layer 2. Whatever you do with Layer 1, a viewer must know it. That's the theory. And that's why no show or film tried to pull what GoT tried with that fast-motioning. Nobody does that. Fast-motioning wasn't the problem. Covert fast-motioning was. A really, really big problem, because it goes against all the theory and all the experience of motion pictures.

Now, if I see what they've done with two tiny half-second scenes, and I know how wrong it is, and I know nobody ever done it the way they did, what am I to do? Am I to be OK with it, because it's only one second in total out of 30 hours? Or should I reach some conclusion?

I'm going home now. I'll be online in about one hour, maybe less, if anyone replies here and expects me to reply back.

Wow, NotYourSir. You are a font of punishingly long posts. In my opinion, the main payoff of the Arya/Tywin scenes was episodes 209-210. In that the viewer did not see the triumph of the Lannisters at the Blackwater as entirely depressing because we had forged a connection with Tywin at Harrenhal. Whether that was the intent, I can't say.

I really do think you are nitpicking here. If show Tywin is more appealing than book Tywin, I think the deviations in writing are a minor part of it, and Dance's charisma deserves the "lion's share."

[Miodrag]

Wow, NotYourSir. You are a font of punishingly long posts. In my opinion, the main payoff of the Arya/Tywin scenes was episodes 209-210. In that the viewer did not see the triumph of the Lannisters at the Blackwater as entirely depressing because we had forged a connection with Tywin at Harrenhal. Whether that was the intent, I can't say.

I really do think you are nitpicking here. If show Tywin is more appealing than book Tywin, I think the deviations in writing are a minor part of it, and Dance's charisma deserves the "lion's share."

Well, in general I kinda agree with you, cause, as I said in a post you quoted, every critique of the show inevitably tends to be nitpicking, due to the nature of this adaptation. But, with Tywin/Arya specifically, I must disagree: that's the classic example of no-middle-ground stuff, i.e. you either have absolutely no problem with the change (possibly find it an improvement), or you can't get over the opportunity they've missed.

From the perspective of the show universe, no transgression occurred there. Two important characters, completely different and yet not without similarities, and in positions that oppose each other in every way possible - all that provides an ideal environment for subtle confrontation, like the one we witnessed. The confrontation itself could've been worded more craftily, and some short-term "reward" could've been inserted (for example: other servants in the castle - glorified extras in terms of production costs - hate Arya because of her privileged position, which adds drama in her escape from Harrenhal after Tywin's leave, and explains why she doesn't command Jaqen to kill Tywin), but, even without all that, the scenes themselves certainly didn't hurt, and the reaction of fandom indicates that significant part of the audience loved Tywin/Arya. (Though, I have to notice those scenes were hailed only among readers; unsullied viewers weren't nearly as enthusiastic, from what I've seen; they were OK with the scenes, but saw nothing special there.)

That's one side of the story. But there's the other side, with the source material in the equation. In my humble opinion, Arya's experience in Harrenhal is among Martin's "pure gold" stuff, but not only because of her character development. Yes, ASOIAF is a character driven story, and Arya is among it's main characters, but her or anyone's development may be altered and still lead to the same results. What can't be altered, but only lost, are ultimate themes of ASOIAF, and importance of one represented by Arya's agony in Harrenhal and the help Jaqen offered to her, can't be overstated in my eyes. As I wrote earlier, it's one more rendition of Faustian legend, in which a mortal is aided by an agent of evil in exchange for mortal's soul. In ACOK we don't have an agent of evil in a strict sense, but an agent of Death (with FM later revealed as precisely that kind of order, and proud of it). And we have Arya, a creature in desperate need for every help possible. And we have no soul request! That last part is, in my opinion, one of Martin's strongest claims to literary Pantheon. I can't think of any similar example, in which the price of Agent's help is never spoken of, it's never strictly on the table, but it's part of the exchange from the very beginning. As we later see, Arya has to take her soul back from Faceless Men, or she's going to lose it for good. Faustian legend, but with a twist, and played with such a style and elegance and intelligence. (If I may be personal, the first kill she ordered from Jaqen convinced me it's the masterpiece of a series I'm reading, because Martin is after something much bigger than an excellent story; there were extremely strong hints before, like Ned's death, but Arya and Jaqen were the point of no return for me.) Arya and Jaqen were supposed to be the focus of that arc. Tywin has no business there. For Arya, it should've been all the horrors on one side, and Jaqen on the other side, and the choice she's faced with three times. Tywin's presence just spoils it.

In fact, had they put Tywin's war council sessions, and kept him apart from Arya and her storyline, they'd manage to depict all sides of the war itself within the single plotline and without large scale scenes that drain the budget. It would be brilliant television all around. (And they'd keep Charles Dance happy, cause, as I've read somewhere, he insisted on expanded screen-time and even threatened to quit over it, and they invented Tywin/Arya because of it.)

When I think of that wasted possibility, I can't help but feel disappointed in the direction they took (even if there was a payoff you're talking about, which I honestly don't see, because that was already accomplished by Tyrionisation of the whole show and they didn't have to bother Tywin with it).

And you just keep complaining on long posts. I can always go longer.

[Weeping Sore]

Well, in general I kinda agree with you, cause, as I said in a post you quoted, every critique of the show inevitably tends to be nitpicking, due to the nature of this adaptation. But, with Tywin/Arya specifically, I must disagree: that's the classic example of no-middle-ground stuff, i.e. you either have absolutely no problem with the change (possibly find it an improvement), or you can't get over the opportunity they've missed.

From the perspective of the show universe, no transgression occurred there. Two important characters, completely different and yet not without similarities, and in positions that oppose each other in every way possible - all that provides an ideal environment for subtle confrontation, like the one we witnessed. The confrontation itself could've been worded more craftily, and some short-term "reward" could've been inserted (for example: other servants in the castle - glorified extras in terms of production costs - hate Arya because of her privileged position, which adds drama in her escape from Harrenhal after Tywin's leave, and explains why she doesn't command Jaqen to kill Tywin), but, even without all that, the scenes themselves certainly didn't hurt, and the reaction of fandom indicates that significant part of the audience loved Tywin/Arya. (Though, I have to notice those scenes were hailed only among readers; unsullied viewers weren't nearly as enthusiastic, from what I've seen; they were OK with the scenes, but saw nothing special there.)

That's one side of the story. But there's the other side, with the source material in the equation. In my humble opinion, Arya's experience in Harrenhal is among Martin's "pure gold" stuff, but not only because of her character development. Yes, ASOIAF is a character driven story, and Arya is among it's main characters, but her or anyone's development may be altered and still lead to the same results. What can't be altered, but only lost, are ultimate themes of ASOIAF, and importance of one represented by Arya's agony in Harrenhal and the help Jaqen offered to her, can't be overstated in my eyes. As I wrote earlier, it's one more rendition of Faustian legend, in which a mortal is aided by an agent of evil in exchange for mortal's soul. In ACOK we don't have an agent of evil in a strict sense, but an agent of Death (with FM later revealed as precisely that kind of order, and proud of it). And we have Arya, a creature in desperate need for every help possible. And we have no soul request! That last part is, in my opinion, one of Martin's strongest claims to literary Pantheon. I can't think of any similar example, in which the price of Agent's help is never spoken of, it's never strictly on the table, but it's part of the exchange from the very beginning. As we later see, Arya has to take her soul back from Faceless Men, or she's going to lose it for good. Faustian legend, but with a twist, and played with such a style and elegance and intelligence. (If I may be personal, the first kill she ordered from Jaqen convinced me it's the masterpiece of a series I'm reading, because Martin is after something much bigger than an excellent story; there were extremely strong hints before, like Ned's death, but Arya and Jaqen were the point of no return for me.) Arya and Jaqen were supposed to be the focus of that arc. Tywin has no business there. For Arya, it should've been all the horrors on one side, and Jaqen on the other side, and the choice she's faced with three times. Tywin's presence just spoils it.

In fact, had they put Tywin's war council sessions, and kept him apart from Arya and her storyline, they'd manage to depict all sides of the war itself within the single plotline and without large scale scenes that drain the budget. It would be brilliant television all around. (And they'd keep Charles Dance happy, cause, as I've read somewhere, he insisted on expanded screen-time and even threatened to quit over it, and they invented Tywin/Arya because of it.)

When I think of that wasted possibility, I can't help but feel disappointed in the direction they took (even if there was a payoff you're talking about, which I honestly don't see, because that was already accomplished by Tyrionisation of the whole show and they didn't have to bother Tywin with it).

And you just keep complaining on long posts. I can always go longer.

As brevity is the soul of wit...

Book Arya Harrenhal great. Show Arya Harrenhal still good.

Bolton Stark Friend. Why Book Arya kill Stark Friend man? Why Arya no say Stark friend I princess of North make me sandwich?

Show Arya no kill. Show Arya need see wolf head brother then kill Frey man.

[silentwanderer]

I think nothing of the Amory scene.

To be honest, I was so distracted with Jaqen H'ghar I barely paid attention to Ser Armory Loch.

He was the target/pay-back around which Jaqen and Arya bonded on the show, that's all.

[Mr Fixit]

As brevity is the soul of wit...

Book Arya Harrenhal great. Show Arya Harrenhal still good.

Bolton Stark Friend. Why Book Arya kill Stark Friend man? Why Arya no say Stark friend I princess of North make me sandwich?

Show Arya no kill. Show Arya need see wolf head brother then kill Frey man.

Well said, Cookie Monster. Have a cookie now.

[Miodrag]

As brevity is the soul of wit...

Book Arya Harrenhal great. Show Arya Harrenhal still good.

Bolton Stark Friend. Why Book Arya kill Stark Friend man? Why Arya no say Stark friend I princess of North make me sandwich?

Show Arya no kill. Show Arya need see wolf head brother then kill Frey man.

Book:

Arya want help north men. Arya make Jaqen help her help north men. Weasel soup. Arya see "weasel soup" was "for nothing soup". Jaqen mock Arya. Arya sense something not right. Bolton man come be boss man. Bolton man do cruel stuff to men. And women. Gendry chastise Arya. Everybody chastise Arya. Arya want tell Bolton man. She serve Bolton man. She hear Bolton man say he "not to be undone". She see strange angry men speak to Bolton man. She hear Bran dead Rickon dead. Arya sense everything not right. Arya want home. Guard say Arya can't go. Arya drop coin. Guard want coin. Guard lose life. And coin. Arya take both. Arya go home.

Weeping Sore now think book great?

P.S. Who the fuck invented grammar anyway?!

[Weeping Sore]

Book:

Arya want help north men. Arya make Jaqen help her help north men. Weasel soup. Arya see "weasel soup" was "for nothing soup". Jaqen mock Arya. Arya sense something not right. Bolton man come be boss man. Bolton man do cruel stuff to men. And women. Gendry chastise Arya. Everybody chastise Arya. Arya want tell Bolton man. She serve Bolton man. She hear Bolton man say he "not to be undone". She see strange angry men speak to Bolton man. She hear Bran dead Rickon dead. Arya sense everything not right. Arya want home. Guard say Arya can't go. Arya drop coin. Guard want coin. Guard lose life. And coin. Arya take both. Arya go home.

Weeping Sore now think book great?

P.S. Who the fuck invented grammar anyway?!

Even in cookie-monster argot, that's a little bit subtle. Might have been hard to get all that across in the same time. Show Arya hadn't gone through nearly as much before getting to Harrenhal either, and as is obvious now, they wanted to forestall her becoming a killer until the end of S3. So the book was better here, but Tywin/Arya still worked for the show IMO.

Your original point had something to do with Tywin being white-washed, but I think Tywin isn't damaged by coming off as avuncular with Arya. Couldn't he be a horrible dad/ indulgent uncle? Capable of kindness to those who have no responsibility for his precious legacy, cruel and unforgiving to his own children?

Again, to belabor the point, it's just that Dance is a boss, and he's taken over Tywin. Tywin's as much his as he is GRRM's now.

[Miodrag]

Even in cookie-monster argot, that's a little bit subtle. Might have been hard to get all that across in the same time. Show Arya hadn't gone through nearly as much before getting to Harrenhal either, and as is obvious now, they wanted to forestall her becoming a killer until the end of S3. So the book was better here, but Tywin/Arya still worked for the show IMO.

It would've been hard. Not impossible. Maisie Williams is one of, if not the strongest finds in the cast, and I believe she'd be all kinds of brilliant with an arc that is closer to the books. Her talent enables them to use the time allocated to her storyline more efficiently. With tighter scripts, she's up to the task. (Jack Dempsey to, if I may add. He would've been of great importance, but he'd deliver as Gendry. I think he's underused and wrongly used in the show. Jaqen actor too.)

About forestalling, I can't see what was the gain of it. Things need to be compressed like all the time, why would they forestall a storyline that is already loaded with all kind of crazy stuff?

Your original point had something to do with Tywin being white-washed, but I think Tywin isn't damaged by coming off as avuncular with Arya. Couldn't he be a horrible dad/ indulgent uncle? Capable of kindness to those who have no responsibility for his precious legacy, cruel and unforgiving to his own children?

Maybe white-washed isn't the best word (I used it in the context). Softened fits probably better. And, the way you described him, he's definitely softened for the show. Again, can't see the benefit of that, even if it does work in the show.

Again, to belabor the point, it's just that Dance is a boss, and he's taken over Tywin. Tywin's as much his as he is GRRM's now.

Dance's acting is powerful. It wouldn't be any less powerful with a stronger character. On the contrary, it would've been even more powerful. Just like in S1, when he was more similar to book version. Or in 03x01 scene with Tyrion, when he denies him Casterly Rock.

And no, he didn't overtake Tywin from GRRM. Nor from D&D, for that matter. Dance is quite good, but 'his' Tywin is not even close to James Gandolfini-Tony Soprano situation, which is the only case I'd agree that a partial overtaking of character by the actor took place. (Partial, mind you; Tony didn't become less Chase's when he became more Gandolfini's.)

[Le Cygne]

The Hound, who was portrayed sympathetically in the books, is now simply a psychopath. While he was never cuddly in the books, a few choice nuances softened his character, making him fairly sympathetic. You got to see how much this guy's worldview was twisted by his horrible older brother, who was truly a monster. You can see him actively trying to be evil, because he thinks that's how he's supposed to be. But sometimes he just can't do it. In the show, he's like "Gee, I sure love killing people. Yep, killing people is awesome. I have no problem whatsover murdering anyone ever." Maybe this will change a bit in season four with his scenes with Arya, but I doubt it. I bet people will cheer when she leaves him to die.

This. By this time in the books, it was driving him crazy that they beat Sansa, he thought he let her down. On the show, I figure he will just roll over and grunt when it's time to die. No regrets.

One you missed though is Sansa. In the show she's this empty-headed puppet. Stuff happens to her; she has zero agency. In the books, after Joff kills Ned she gets way smarter and more mature, she actively mistrusts the Lannisters (all of them, including Tyrion) and she is totally and utterly alone. On the show she has her bff Shae (like wtf??), plus dear ol' Marg to show her how to be more accepting of Tyrion?! The end result is her looking like a stuck-up idiot while in the books she's a much more layered, complex character who displays immense growth.

This. And Shae as her bff, wtf. More like her babysitter, because she acts about she's about 5 years old. And I don't even want to know how stupid they are going to make her look around Littlefinger.

Bollocks. I see people going on about this and makes me wonder whether they even bothered to actually read her chapters; how is she a comic book villain exactly? She's a very tragic character, cruel and unfortunate, and she's losing her mind. In the books she's great, if anything it's her show counterpart to be a cliche, uninteresting, misunderstood character. "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" was already old when Jessica Rabbit said it in the 90s.

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.

[Lone Star Pate]

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

[Weeping Sore]

It would've been hard. Not impossible. Maisie Williams is one of, if not the strongest finds in the cast, and I believe she'd be all kinds of brilliant with an arc that is closer to the books. Her talent enables them to use the time allocated to her storyline more efficiently. With tighter scripts, she's up to the task. (Jack Dempsey to, if I may add. He would've been of great importance, but he'd deliver as Gendry. I think he's underused and wrongly used in the show. Jaqen actor too.)

About forestalling, I can't see what was the gain of it. Things need to be compressed like all the time, why would they forestall a storyline that is already loaded with all kind of crazy stuff?

Maybe white-washed isn't the best word (I used it in the context). Softened fits probably better. And, the way you described him, he's definitely softened for the show. Again, can't see the benefit of that, even if it does work in the show.

Dance's acting is powerful. It wouldn't be any less powerful with a stronger character. On the contrary, it would've been even more powerful. Just like in S1, when he was more similar to book version. Or in 03x01 scene with Tyrion, when he denies him Casterly Rock.

And no, he didn't overtake Tywin from GRRM. Nor from D&D, for that matter. Dance is quite good, but 'his' Tywin is not even close to James Gandolfini-Tony Soprano situation, which is the only case I'd agree that a partial overtaking of character by the actor took place. (Partial, mind you; Tony didn't become less Chase's when he became more Gandolfini's.)

Ok, I was exaggerating when I said he had taken over the part. And yes, softened is the right word. But he is not softened toward his own children (or grandchild), so while he is changed, I don't think he is damaged. 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.

Do you watch the show with any unsullied? I watch it with my wife, who is. I'm sure this structures my responses somewhat, as nothing would be more tedious than my lecturing her on all the ways the show is not measuring up.

ETA: BTW, her favorite character is The Hound

[Miodrag]

Ok, I was exaggerating when I said he had taken over the part. And yes, softened is the right word. But he is not softened toward his own children (or grandchild), so while he is changed, I don't think he is damaged. 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.

Not aggravating at all. Other than arrogance and rudeness, nothing aggravates me in "show vs. books" discussions. You're not even close to the extreme in show-loving department. Not that the extremists aggravate me, either. I love debating even with the most fanatical show-lovers, you know, those guys who find no fault in the show, and see every change as an improvement. If they aren't rude, and majority of them isn't, why the hell would I mind them?

Do you watch the show with any unsullied? I watch it with my wife, who is. I'm sure this structures my responses somewhat, as nothing would be more tedious than my lecturing her on all the ways the show is not measuring up.

ETA: BTW, her favorite character is The Hound

In my circle, it's a disaster. The other day, in some discussion here, I tried to count, and the result was devastating for the show: only three unsullied viewers are still watching. The rest, some dozen or so of them, quit after Season 2, or very early on in Season 3. Majority of them are in their 30s, with few 20s and 40s. (Among the three still watching, one is the owner of the magazine I write for, ans he's 65 years old.) Among book readers, same thing. Only, they weren't that much interested in the show to begin with. They didn't expect the adaptation to be successful and after Season 1, or even earlier, they were like: OK, I knew it, no need to watch any more.

And truth be told, it's not only GoT to blame. Movies and TV tend to loose a lot of appeal as one's reaching midlife years (let's say, around 40). And with literature it's the other way around. Some 15 years ago, I watched 2-3 films a day, and read no more than 5-10 books a year. Nowadays: movie a month on average, around 30 novels a year (it goes even higher if I count non-fictional books in). Same thing with my friends.

But, that's my circle, of which HBO couldn't care less, with numbers clearly going wild for GoT at the moment. (Though, I think it's going to be downhill from now on, because of the RW. Not that I wish it, because, honestly, I don't care about the ratings. But, there was a slight drop for the finale. After Ned's death there was no drop, as I recall. It even bumped a little for Season 1 finale. I suspect GoT peaked already, and the reason is D&D's decision to use RW almost exclusively for shock. Long-term, it may prove very bad direction.)

[Weeping Sore]

Not aggravating at all. Other than arrogance and rudeness, nothing aggravates me in "show vs. books" discussions. You're not even close to the extreme in show-loving department. Not that the extremists aggravate me, either. I love debating even with the most fanatical show-lovers, you know, those guys who find no fault in the show, and see every change as an improvement. If they aren't rude, and majority of them isn't, why the hell would I mind them?

In my circle, it's a disaster. The other day, in some discussion here, I tried to count, and the result was devastating for the show: only three unsullied viewers are still watching. The rest, some dozen or so of them, quit after Season 2, or very early on in Season 3. Majority of them are in their 30s, with few 20s and 40s. (Among the three still watching, one is the owner of the magazine I write for, ans he's 65 years old.) Among book readers, same thing. Only, they weren't that much interested in the show to begin with. They didn't expect the adaptation to be successful and after Season 1, or even earlier, they were like: OK, I knew it, no need to watch any more.

And truth be told, it's not only GoT to blame. Movies and TV tend to loose a lot of appeal as one's reaching midlife years (let's say, around 40). And with literature it's the other way around. Some 15 years ago, I watched 2-3 films a day, and read no more than 5-10 books a year. Nowadays: movie a month on average, around 30 novels a year (it goes even higher if I count non-fictional books in). Same thing with my friends.

But, that's my circle, of which HBO couldn't care less, with numbers clearly going wild for GoT at the moment. (Though, I think it's going to be downhill from now on, because of the RW. Not that I wish it, because, honestly, I don't care about the ratings. But, there was a slight drop for the finale. After Ned's death there was no drop, as I recall. It even bumped a little for Season 1 finale. I suspect GoT peaked already, and the reason is D&D's decision to use RW almost exclusively for shock. Long-term, it may prove very bad direction.)

Apropos of nothing, I thought of one film that is a perfect adaptation of a novel. The novel: Laszlo Krasnahorkai's The Melancholy of Resistance - the film: Bela Tarr's The Werkmeister Harmonies. (Black & White - 2 1/2 hours, 39 shots total) One of the few true masterpieces made in the 21st century. I'm not sure how great the English translation of the novel is- you might have better luck in Serbian. (The original is Hungarian)

[Miodrag]

Apropos of nothing, I thought of one film that is a perfect adaptation of a novel. The novel: Laszlo Krasnahorkai's The Melancholy of Resistance - the film: Bela Tarr's The Werkmeister Harmonies. (Black & White - 2 1/2 hours, 39 shots total) One of the few true masterpieces made in the 21st century. I'm not sure how great the English translation of the novel is- you might have better luck in Serbian. (The original is Hungarian)

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.

[brian_177]

I think it's funny that so many people here praise Charles Dance as one of the best characters in the TV series, when he himself has said that he doesn't care at all how close the TV show is to the books. An adaptation is just that, an adaptation--and to treat it as a copy of the books in motion picture form does makes it boring to be a writer or actor on the series. They make changes to tell the story they want to tell, in the way they want to tell it.

As a comparison, Lord of the Rings is loved by many fans of the books despite the fact that major characters--such as Aragorn and Gandalf--act completely differently in the movies than in Tolkien's books.

People inclined to nitpicking will never be happy, because no group of writers and actors will ever be able to capture what you yourself had in your head when you read the books, on top of the obvious fact that no adaptation is ever as good as the original book(s).