Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Westeros

Season 4 Roundup

Recommended Posts

This is not a valid excuse, considering that in seasons 2 and 3 they added more storylines rather than reducing them (Robb in season 2, expanding Dany's storyline in season 2, giving Theon a storyline in season 3, etc.)

But most importantly: most of the complaints about seasons 2 and 3 are about the unnecessary changes made to the source material: Robb/Talisa, the Qarth story, replacing the Halfhand with Ygritte, etc. These unnecessary changes have nothing whatsoever to do with the "difference in scope between AGoT and later books", so the excuse is simply not relevant.

If anything, it's D&D who have failed to understand this difference in scope. They have talked about how they had to add additional scenes in season one, which they enjoyed doing. But then they continue to add these additional scenes in later seasons, despite the "difference in scope" meaning that there is far less time for these scenes.

The quality of the added material is up for debate, something for each viewer to decide for himself. You had a problem with that; that's OK, I understand. I also wasn't overly enamored with Jon's S2 and S3 storyline - it was slight and undercooked, possibly the worst part of the show to date.

I was only pointing out that Books 2 and 3 *are* much more sprawling than Book 1. Even a fantastically faithful adaptation would have to cut corners and leave large chunks of material behind, since you simply can't do justice to all those separate storylines unless you have more episodes per season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a valid excuse, considering that in seasons 2 and 3 they added more storylines rather than reducing them (Robb in season 2, expanding Dany's storyline in season 2, giving Theon a storyline in season 3, etc.)

and this is wrong because?

Fans love Dany and Robb and they wouldn't have liked it to see them only half of the season and Theon.

Do you really think non- readers would have remembered Theon if he didn't appear in like 2 seasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only pointing out that Books 2 and 3 *are* much more sprawling than Book 1. Even a fantastically faithful adaptation would have to cut corners and leave large chunks of material behind, since you simply can't do justice to all those separate storylines unless you have more episodes per season.

Everyone understands that an adaptation will involve cut scenes and amalgimations and that is understandable. The problem a lot of people have, is that the show runners have created so many extra scenes and storylines, which mean that more of the actual story is being cut than need be. The infamous brothel scene from Season 3 and running Pod "the lover" joke was dire and used up valuable screen time, that could have been better spent elsewhere.

Fans love Dany and Robb and they wouldn't have liked it to see them only half of the season and Theon.

Do you really think non- readers would have remembered Theon if he didn't appear in like 2 seasons

Well they remembered Barristan Selmy, who had an even smaller role than Theon's. They could have easily had one maybe two short torture scenes in Season 3, and then periodically mentioned in Season 4 by Yara (Asha) and then turned up again in Season 5.

Also Lysa will be there next season and we haven't seen her since season 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quality of the added material is up for debate, something for each viewer to decide for himself. You had a problem with that; that's OK, I understand. I also wasn't overly enamored with Jon's S2 and S3 storyline - it was slight and undercooked, possibly the worst part of the show to date.

I was only pointing out that Books 2 and 3 *are* much more sprawling than Book 1. Even a fantastically faithful adaptation would have to cut corners and leave large chunks of material behind, since you simply can't do justice to all those separate storylines unless you have more episodes per season.

A faithful adaption, IMO, would be one that condenses the material without losing the tone or themes of its novel. A good example is the way they ended season 1 with Jon leaving Castle Black and began season 2 with his arrival at Craster's Keep, or the way they merged the shadowbabies.

Cutting important moments from the books to add low quality filler scenes is not a good way to make a faithful adaption, nor is it a good way to make a TV show in general.

and this is wrong because?

Fans love Dany and Robb and they wouldn't have liked it to see them only half of the season and Theon.

Do you really think non- readers would have remembered Theon if he didn't appear in like 2 seasons

It's wrong because it weakened the show.

Fans loved Ned. Should they not have killed his character at the end of season one?

But anyway, Dany and Robb's storylines in season two were awful. Dany's storyline was even heavily criticised and mocked by viewers. So I think less screentime would have been a very smart idea. Fans might not have been happy with it, but ultimately a higher quality product is better than more screentime for their favourite characters.

As for Theon... that was kinda the point, you know? He disappeared for an entire novel (well, two, considering that AFfC and ADwD were split), and when we see him again he's an entirely different character; he's not Theon anymore, he's Reek. GRRM deliberately does not show us this transformation, and the story is stronger because of it.

I think they could even have just left Theon out of season 3 and brought him back in season 4 (to begin his ADwD storyline), considering that there is less story and fewer storylines in season 4. And I doubt many viewers would have forgotten him after only one season; but even if they did, it wouldn't take much to remind them that this was the character who took Winterfell and "betrayed" the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A faithful adaption, IMO, would be one that condenses the material without losing the tone or themes of its novel. A good example is the way they ended season 1 with Jon leaving Castle Black and began season 2 with his arrival at Craster's Keep, or the way they merged the shadowbabies.

Cutting important moments from the books to add low quality filler scenes is not a good way to make a faithful adaption, nor is it a good way to make a TV show in general.

It's wrong because it weakened the show.

Fans loved Ned. Should they not have killed his character at the end of season one?

But anyway, Dany and Robb's storylines in season two were awful. Dany's storyline was even heavily criticised and mocked by viewers. So I think less screentime would have been a very smart idea. Fans might not have been happy with it, but ultimately a higher quality product is better than more screentime for their favourite characters.

As for Theon... that was kinda the point, you know? He disappeared for an entire novel (well, two, considering that AFfC and ADwD were split), and when we see him again he's an entirely different character; he's not Theon anymore, he's Reek. GRRM deliberately does not show us this transformation, and the story is stronger because of it.

I think they could even have just left Theon out of season 3 and brought him back in season 4 (to begin his ADwD storyline), considering that there is less story and fewer storylines in season 4. And I doubt many viewers would have forgotten him after only one season; but even if they did, it wouldn't take much to remind them that this was the character who took Winterfell and "betrayed" the Starks.

Okay, with Danys storyline in season 2 you're right but I liked Robbs story even though without any battles which is not their fault but more a budget problem.

And the absence of Theon might work in a book but not a tv show. I agree that they could have shorten Theons torture scenes but if they had it completely let out

nobody would give a shit about Theon in season 5 especially when you don't see his inner thoughts.

I got the feeling that everything GRRM does gets glorified on this forum and everything D and D does gets critisized.

But thats how it always works with book readers. Just be glad this aint no Harry Potter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the absence of Theon might work in a book but not a tv show.

How would it not work?

I've already given the examples of Barristen Selmy and Lysa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would it not work?

I've already given the examples of Barristen Selmy and Lysa.

Can you read bra. It would work but without his "redemption torture" his storyline isn't complete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, with Danys storyline in season 2 you're right but I liked Robbs story even though without any battles which is not their fault but more a budget problem.

And the absence of Theon might work in a book but not a tv show. I agree that they could have shorten Theons torture scenes but if they had it completely let out

nobody would give a shit about Theon in season 5 especially when you don't see his inner thoughts.

I got the feeling that everything GRRM does gets glorified on this forum and everything D and D does gets critisized.

But thats how it always works with book readers. Just be glad this aint no Harry Potter.

Let's put it this way: if you had had to read about Theon's torture for a whole book (possibly more) before it became relevant to the plot, would you care about Theon? Because, so far, I haven't seen any positive responses towards Theon's story in season 3. Viewers just don't care about him. That means his storyline has failed.

I guarantee that, if Theon was absent for at least one season and returned in season 4/5 as an almost unidentifiable Reek, the reception to his storyline would be far stronger and positive. Hinting at the torture by showing its effects would be much more powerful and memorable than forcing a "transition" from Theon to Reek.

And please, I'm not glorifying GRRM. But he made a great story, and D&D are failing to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you read bra.

No need to be rude.

It would work but without his "redemption torture" his storyline isn't complete

Yes and in my previous post I said the following.

Well they remembered Barristan Selmy, who had an even smaller role than Theon's. They could have easily had one maybe two short torture scenes in Season 3, and then periodically mentioned in Season 4 by Yara (Asha) and then turned up again in Season 5.

Also Lysa will be there next season and we haven't seen her since season 1.

We do not have to see every second of the torture to get what's happened to him. The Reek character speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem D&D have is that they are telling instead of showing. Which is the first thing I was told not to do in any writing class I have ever taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to be rude.

Calm down it's a joke.

We do not have to see every second of the torture to get what's happened to him. The Reek character speaks for itself.

That's what I meant. They should have shorten it but I think it would be a mistake to completely cut it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to cut the adaptation more slack because much of the criticism seems like a lot of armchair quarterbacking from people who don't work in TV, or from fans who are put out that their ship of choice and their favourites are underserved or that characters they loathe are depicted in a more positive light than they think the character deserves. (The resentment bubbling forth from the Tyrion haters and SanSan fans has been delicious.) It's hard to take a lot of it seriously, especially when many of the changes fans are whining about have to do with the realities of TV production or were dictated by production issues. (The SanSan fans are never going to get over Littlefinger getting to tell the story of Sandor's burns, even though it was a last-minute change the showrunners had no choice over.)

And really, one thing you're forgetting is that there's an informational asymmetry here. D&D know how the books end. You don't. They're therefore much better positioned to make judgment calls about what needs to be brought forward and what can safely be discarded, how the major POV characters still alive in the books should be written in view of the totality of their arcs. You're not.

I guarantee that, if Theon was absent for at least one season and returned in season 4/5 as an almost unidentifiable Reek, the reception to his storyline would be far stronger and positive. Hinting at the torture by showing its effects would be much more powerful and memorable than forcing a "transition" from Theon to Reek.

You can't guarantee anything. It's kind of adorable that you can hold forth with such certainty about how an alternative way of doing things would absolutely have played better. Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to cut the adaptation more slack because much of the criticism seems like a lot of armchair quarterbacking from people who don't work in TV, or from fans who are put out that their favourites are underserved or that characters they loathe are depicted in a more positive light than they think the character deserves. (The resentment bubbling forth from the Tyrion haters has been delicious.) It's hard to take a lot of it seriously, especially when many of the changes fans are whining about have to do with the realities of TV production or were dictated by production issues. (The SanSan fans are never going to get over Littlefinger getting to tell the story of Sandor's burns, even though it was a last-minute change the showrunners had no choice over.)

And really, one thing you're forgetting is that there's an informational asymmetry here. D&D know how the books end. You don't. They're therefore much better positioned to make judgment calls about what needs to be brought forward and what can safely be discarded. You're not.

You can't guarantee anything. It's kind of adorable that you can hold forth with such certainty about how an alternative way of doing things would absolutely have played better. Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

WORD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, one thing you're forgetting is that there's an informational asymmetry here. D&D know how the books end. You don't. They're therefore much better positioned to make judgment calls about what needs to be brought forward and what can safely be discarded, how the major POV characters still alive in the books should be written in view of the totality of their arcs. You're not.

Well said. Someone here on this forum complained about how the white walkers arrange the bodies of the dead in those strange patterns, bringing that up as one of many examples how D&D screwed up, without bothering to acknowledge the fact that they know exactly who or what WWs are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, one thing you're forgetting is that there's an informational asymmetry here. D&D know how the books end. You don't. They're therefore much better positioned to make judgment calls about what needs to be brought forward and what can safely be discarded, how the major POV characters still alive in the books should be written in view of the totality of their arcs. You're not.

I far from totally dislike the producers' work, but this doesn't really strike me as a particularly good defence, since two of the characters whose portrayals have been the most criticized (Catelyn and Robb) are ones whose stories are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've already given the examples of Barristen Selmy and Lysa.

Dont base your view of the average viewers on Unsullieds online... I'm sure most people didnt remember Barristan at all and remember Lysa only cause she's the "breast feeding" mother, but I'm quite sure the average viewer dont even remember she's Cat's sister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to cut the adaptation more slack because much of the criticism seems like a lot of armchair quarterbacking from people who don't work in TV,

How do you know what people do for a living. Personally I don't work in TV but I know a lot of people who work in film and TV and it really doesn't seem like the changes are because of issues to do with filming that we can't comprehend.

(The resentment bubbling forth from the Tyrion haters and SanSan fans has been delicious.)

That's just a really unpleasant thing to say. Are you seriously reveling in the fact that characters have been so butchered, it upsets their fans?

It's hard to take a lot of it seriously, especially when many of the changes fans are whining about have to do with the realities of TV production or were dictated by production issues. (The SanSan fans are never going to get over Littlefinger getting to tell the story of Sandor's burns, even though it was a last-minute change the showrunners had no choice over.)

Actually a lot of fans were very understanding when it was labelled as a filming issue. The complete gutting of their interactions from that point forward was where fans became more upset and doubtful over the truthfulness of the producers.

And really, one thing you're forgetting is that there's an informational asymmetry here. D&D know how the books end. You don't. They're therefore much better positioned to make judgment calls about what needs to be brought forward and what can safely be discarded, how the major POV characters still alive in the books should be written in view of the totality of their arcs. You're not.

And yet the author has expressed concerns about the butterfly effect of changes and has said that he hopes they end the series the same way as the books. This does not sound like the show runners cutting stuff out to fit things we don't know, but them beating out their own tune.

You can't guarantee anything. It's kind of adorable that you can hold forth with such certainty about how an alternative way of doing things would absolutely have played better. Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

And likewise you can't say that D&D's changes are the only thing keeping on the air and that any other attempt of adapting it would fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rapsie, your interpretation of Martin's concerns is, let's say, liberal.

Well here are the quotes:

"He [GRRM] said: 'I know how it all ends in broad strokes. Of course, there’s no guarantee the show will end the same way." From 2013

"The other thing that concerns me is what I call the butterfly effect. If you're familiar with the Ray Bradbury short story, you'll know what I mean. On TV, we saw the death of Mago, but we will see him in the books — he's still alive. It will have to be different in the book than in the show, because they killed him on TV. These are the kind of ripple effects that can happen."

"Step on a butterfly in the Pleistocene Era and it changes everything in year 2000. [MILD BOOK 6 SPOILER WARNING] So Mago is not dead in the books. And, in fact, he’s going to be a recurring character in Winds of Winter. He’s a particularly nasty bloodrider to one of the other Khals that’s broken away after Drogo dies. This is the challenge the shows face as we go forward. There will be divergences, they’re trying to be faithful and Dan and David are doing a wonderful job. But the books are plotted so intricately that you do step on a butterfly in season one and in season four you’re going to have to deal with that. There’s also another character, [the singer] Marillion, who also got his tongue ripped out in season one, and that doesn’t happen with the books. Joffrey makes that decision, but it’s an unnamed bard. Marillion [has more to do]. We ought to call it The Tongue Effect instead of The Butterfly Effect."

From 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know what people do for a living. Personally I don't work in TV but I know a lot of people who work in film and TV and it really doesn't seem like the changes are because of issues to do with filming that we can't comprehend.

Because if they did work in TV, they would state that they did as authenticating their opinion, but of course they don't, just as you don't, you only know "a lot of people," which doesn't make you a person with knowledge, just somebody who knows people with knowledge, and "it really doesn't seem," again, shows your lack of personal knowledge or expertise. Also, even if a person did have specialized knowledge or expertise and could give opinions as to how they would have done it, I'd imagine that they would refrain from having the gall to say that they would have done it better, since they weren't dealing personally with the same issues and constraints D&D were facing. In my particular field, of which I do have knowledge and expertise, I see people in my field do things differently than I personally would have done them all the time, but because I'm not an arrogant blowhard and since I was never in their shoes, I don't pretend that their choices were mistaken or bad just because they chose a different method than I would have. But every anonymous poster with two ignorant opinions to rub together is an expert and an omniscient TV showrunning genius on the Internet, apparently.

And I'm not saying all the changes are justifiable because of filming, just that I'm way more willing to cut the showrunners slack and to avoid arrogantly stating that I know how to do it better and would have done it better, because I don't pretend to have personal expertise in the area, and I'm not an armchair quarterback. Nor do I make the ridiculous claim of perfect knowledge of how an alternative way of doing things would have worked out, whereas posters like PatrickStormborn have no such compunction.

That's just a really unpleasant thing to say. Are you seriously reveling in the fact that characters have been so butchered, it upsets their fans?

"Your resentment is delicious" is actually a line from Glee back when it was good, but yeah, it's a little amusing when I read the umpteenth Tyrion hater gnashing their teeth at how eeeeeevil Tyrion is and why don't the showrunners understaaaaaaaand, or when I read the umpteenth SanSan fan moaning about how the showrunners don't get how SanSan is the greatest love story of the modern age.

Actually a lot of [sanSan] fans were very understanding when it was labelled as a filming issue.

Not from what I've seen. Nor could they get it through their skulls that it might be inappropriate or problematic to depict a rootable adult male character showing sexual interest in and threatening at knifepoint a 13-year-old female character. Of course, if they did think it was inappropriate or problematic, maybe they would know better than to ship SanSan in the first place, but that's another question entirely.

And yet the author has expressed concerns about the butterfly effect of changes and has said that he hopes they end the series the same way as the books. This does not sound like the show runners cutting stuff out to fit things we don't know, but them beating out their own tune.

Well, again, you don't know either way, do you? And D&D have confirmed several times that they know how the books end, and that they have visited with GRRM to get further details as to post-ADWD character and plot arcs. Either way you slice it, they have information you don't, and you should think about that before going off about this or that failing in the TV show (regarding characters who are still alive, that is...I agree that Robb and Catelyn's arcs probably aren't affected by information we don't have, since their arcs are done in the books).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×