why the HBO show 'MIGHT' have f****d up

[boojam]

How can they compress the Kingsmoot badly? All they'd need to do for me to be satisfied is to show Aeron declaring that Kingsmoot must take place, and then show Asha, Victarion and finally Euron making their (short) stands for leadership. I'd even be fine with just Asha and Euron, if they cut the other two brothers. I don't see how compressing the Kingsmoot could ruin the Kingsmoot.

If they leave it out, I'll be disappointed (for reasons I've already explained in other threads - mainly because of the relevance of keeping Theon and Asha around without the Kingsmoot). If what we get is worse than the Kingsmoot, I'll be livid.

But regardless, I'm sure there will be many other opportunities for me to cry "butchery" next season and beyond. I hope there isn't, but I'd be deluding myself if I trusted D&D to create a good, coherent, intelligent season of television.

Across three seasons there have been departures and inventions that have not bothered me, since I feel the backbone of GRRM's story is still in play.

I can see D&D wanting to keep the audience from forgetting the Greyjoys , besides Theon, but S3E10 seemed a square wave in the story when Asha(Yara) leaves Pyke on a mission (off her own making). I can't see how that's gonna play out since a real rescue of Theon would really break up two main plot arcs that fit logically in George's story.

I don't mind keeping a Greyjoy story going and on screen , but twisting the plot at this point too much really distorts the narrative.

Kingsmoot could actually be moved to season 5 since they don't seem to have cast , I guess!, any of the other main Greyjoy characters for this season.

Where Asha(Yara)'s story goes season 4 is a real puzzle to me.

[Khal Porno]

The Kingsmoot doesn't really matter, as nothing really changes from before to after. Euron is the "king" and everyone has to submit to his will. He says "sorry Yara you can't do it because you're a chick," Vick and Aeron begrudgingly agree but plan to overthrow him (or whatever is going on there), Yara is disenfranchised. There's no point in spending time on it, although they may just because it's interesting.

[Ser Tahu]

The Kingsmoot doesn't really matter, as nothing really changes from before to after. Euron is the "king" and everyone has to submit to his will. He says "sorry Yara you can't do it because you're a chick," Vick and Aeron begrudgingly agree but plan to overthrow him (or whatever is going on there), Yara is disenfranchised. There's no point in spending time on it, although they may just because it's interesting.

Saying the Kingsmoot doesn't matter because Euron remains king is like saying The battle of Blackwater Bay doesn't matter because Joffrey remains on the Iron Throne. The Kingsmoot was important in two ways:

1) it effects the power of those characters going forward. Blackwater is important because Stannis was crushed and lost a lot of his power. The Kingsmoot is important because both YarAsha and Victarion lose any ability to usurp Euron, and ends any arguments against Euron's rule.

And 2) it was a very effective way of establishing and developing those characters, especially the brothers.

[Khal Porno]

Except they don't lose "any ability," because they are both planning to take what they believe is theirs, or I bet Asha is going to try to get Theon to be the guy now that she knows he is alive.

[Ser Tahu]

Except they don't lose "any ability," because they are both planning to take what they believe is theirs, or I bet Asha is going to try to get Theon to be the guy now that she knows he is alive.

What I should have said is that they lose any ability to usurp/challenge Euron directly. The loss at the Kingsmoot forces them to change tactics entirely, and to use indirect, roundabout methods. After the Kingsmoot, Victarion's mindset is essentially "ok, if I can't take the Iron Islands from you, I will wed Daenerys, take Westeros and rule over you that way". As for YarAsha, the loss causes her to give up on usurping Euron herself, and she is forced to bring in Theon (which she wouldn't otherwise need to do) in the hopes of gaining power through him. So again, to say that the Kingsmoot is useless as Euron is still king and they can still oppose him in some way is like saying Blackwater is useless because Joffrey is still king and Stannis still has ways to oppose him. Power may not change hands, but it changes the game entirely.

[Khal Porno]

No those two things are really not the same. There are a lot of big things that change as a result of the battle of Blackwater and it's a pivotal moment in the story on a huge scale, involving half of all the characters and impacting all of those in a major way. The Kingsmoot is just a wrinkle in a subplot involving a few tertiary characters, and nothing really changes so it's really not necessary to tell the story. Look, the kingsmoot is interesting and I'm sure it would make a great scene on the show and it will probably be included. I'm just saying it really doesn't matter if it's not.

[Le Dragone]

They also screwed up by making Dany immune to fire.

If R+L=J is true and Jon is the dragon or one of the three heads then how could his hand get burned in Castle Black?

[locke and key]

No those two things are really not the same. There are a lot of big things that change as a result of the battle of Blackwater and it's a pivotal moment in the story on a huge scale, involving half of all the characters and impacting all of those in a major way. The Kingsmoot is just a wrinkle in a subplot involving a few tertiary characters, and nothing really changes so it's really not necessary to tell the story. Look, the kingsmoot is interesting and I'm sure it would make a great scene on the show and it will probably be included. I'm just saying it really doesn't matter if it's not.

but why would the people of the iron isles just accept euron as their king, what was made clear at the beginning of the kingsmoot, was that victarion and asha were the favourites to be king, and then euron swept them aside, nobody would've just accepted euron as king straight off and then just decided to work behind his back the ironborn aren't normally subtle enough for that

[Gargarax]

If GRRM smears his feces onto a piece of paper in the shape of Westeros, someone on here is going to say its the best piece of literature that they have ever read. Thats what I take into consideration when someone tries to tell me AFFC was a good chapter in the ASOIAF saga.

Its highly uneventful and serves to only introduce more menial subplots and character progression. It is by far the weakest of all the books and seemed to scare a lot of critics into the belief that GRRM may be in decline. ADWD, whilst I enjoyed due to the inclusion of Aegon and the Golden Company, did not help defeat that notion.

Anymore than one season will only create more dead air in the story progression of the show.

I don't agree at all. The more I think about it (and the more I read on this forum), the more I like AFFC and ADWD. While Brienne's and Jaimie's quests don't really adapt to well to TV, there is terrific political stuff going on in KL, I wouldn't mind at all if Cercei's downfall was given a lot of screen time, as I started to really understand that character in AFFC. I also liked Dorne a lot, to the extent that Doran Martell is now one of my favourite characters. The Dorne plot could be linked more closely to the KL plot in the series, which could give good material for two seasons.

If much of the Great Northern Conspiracy Theory is true, there is amazing stuff there as well, Manderly could be a great character on the show and be built up as the character to bring Bolton and Ramsay down. LF's and Sansa's story was quiet, but there is drama there, especially if Lysa's death is not in season 4. And Arya's apprenticeship - boy, how could that be boring on TV?

If, but only if, viewers can be won over for the Greyjoy boys, their story could give some good material as well. Suppose we see more of the IB war on the west coast of Westeros, they might be perceived as much more of a threat than they are in the books.

Last but not least, Dany: I think her chapters are the once I found the least thrilling, but wasn't that because she was a away from all the nasty stuff that happens in Slaver's Bay, being a queen that does little else than holding counsels? The series is not limited to what we see in her PVOs, and the show could very well show how the crowed she surfed in season 3 slowly but mercilessly turns against her, even her dragons. If they can make a Quentin we get to like, there is easily, easily a lot of fantastic stuff that will get people excited for at least two seasons.

My hope is they will not include TWOW before the middle of season 6. I can't imagine them including Dorne, the Greyjoys, teh Golden Company and still follow the rest of the cast in just about 10 to 15 episodes. That would totally change the pace. I agree adapting AFFC and ADWD is difficult, but D&D are Pros, what they did so far was spectacular, some of the best storytelling TV has ever done. I have no doubt whatsoever that they could succeed in getting viewers very excited about all you think is "dead air".

[Masamune]

Let's be honest here, post-Season 1, Game of Thrones as an adaptation has failed. People like trot out lame excuses like 'The books & the show are separate'. Sorry, it's not that simple. GOT is BASED on ASOIAF . Why is it then unreasonable for the fans of the books to expect a faithful adaptation? To do otherwise would strike me as disingenuous and partly deluded, as I do not see how any genuine fan of ASOIAF can judge the show based on its own merits without compromising their opinion of the books.

Another common argument is that 'GOT is still better than most of the crap on TV'. I couldn't care less about what else is on the box. What's important is that GoT represents the books and therefore should do the source material justice on-screen, not bastardize the characters, themes and other elements that GRRM has worked hard to establish in his life's work. I understand how television operates. There's obviously going to be time and budgetary constraints when adapting a massive epic like ASOIAF. There's an awful lot of fat to trim around the edges, and your average fan will be forgiving when it comes to a few liberties here and there. No one asked for a like-for-like transition, that is simply a strawman argument from anyone who cannot handle criticism of the show. Countless movies & TV shows have been adapted from the written page, and most of the successful ones were those that have treated the source with the respect it deserves.

Perhaps, on the surface, the show bears verisimilitude of resembling the books. By and large, the dots are connecting and people are getting to where they need to be. The crux of the matter is when entire character traits, personalities and motivations are completely skewed, the spirit of ASOIAF is betrayed. It's no longer the same creation, but a pale imitation, and why should that be acceptable? One classic example would be the Red Wedding. Robb & Cat are dead, Edmure's a POW, etc. but the events that led us to that result were irreconcilable with the books, owing to the shoddy treatment the Northern storyline received during season 2 onward. HBO could not resist interpolating their own crap into the mix, and its name was Talisa, whose love-shmuck subplot couldn't have been less incongruous with ASOIAF if they had tried. GRRM goes out of his way to deliberately subvert such clichéd tropes in fiction. This one rewrite essentially changed the whole complexion of the story. Robb was aged up like that most of the kids in the books, and in spite of that, he became a bigger child than his teenage counterpart, and Catelyn's role was demoted to make space for HBO's fan-made character.

People say that Stephen Dillane is a fine Stannis, if let down by the script. As far I'm concerned, the character he's playing isn't Stannis, therefore I can't judge Dillane's performance. When did Stannis become a creeper who dry-humps Mel and craves power? This guy called "Stannis" comes across as a weird asshole on the show, which is none surprising given D&D's less than flattering view of the character, as exposed in their behind-the-scenes interviews. Either they are letting their own bias interfere with the adaptation process or they have not done their homework. I'm not sure which one is more egregious.

Weiss & Benioff had one of the greatest fantasy works laid before them, and were left with the relatively simple task of following that. Don't stray too far from the guidelines and you'd have one of the best pieces of television ever. Everything was there for them to make it happen. Instead, the writers and producers at HBO have been content to fill the show with their own glorified fanfiction.

*flame shield on*

[Gargarax]

While I agree with your argument concerning Talisa - I watched episodes 8-10 yesterday and found the scenes with her and Robb rather terrible - I'd be interested to know why you find Cat such a deviation from the book? Maybe it's because I only read the books after watching the first season of GoT, but I found her reasonably well translated onto screen. I must admit I also had/have no love for Stannis in the books, so I guess I disagree with you there as well.

I admit some changes were painful, but I still love the show. Every TV, drama or even graphic novel adaptation of fiction is an interpretation of the original. And while "The Hobbit" practically stopped me going to cinema ever again because it was such an unbelievably terrible and insulting adaptation, I find it pretty harsh to call "A Game of Thrones" a failure. TV just doesn't have the means or money or audience to adapt a series like this one more faithfully. I'd love it, don't get me wrong, and I can't understand anybody who advertises cutting out all the subtle AFFC and ADWD subplots in favour of action scenes that look great on TV, gut I think I can settle for the level of compromise that D&D makes, with a few exceptions.

[The Imperator]

They also screwed up by making Dany immune to fire.

If R+L=J is true and Jon is the dragon or one of the three heads then how could his hand get burned in Castle Black?

For the same reason Jon doesn't have white hair: he didn't inherit his father's traits or at the very least, all of them.

[TheNorth's1stKnight]

i'm sure they consulted with george before they killed off robb's wife bc martin is a co-ex producer on the show

[Red Tiger]

The seasons that are based on AFFC and ADWD might turn out better than the books themselves--or so I hope.

That's setting the bar pretty low.

[locke and key]

Let's be honest here, post-Season 1, Game of Thrones as an adaptation has failed. People like trot out lame excuses like 'The books & the show are separate'. Sorry, it's not that simple. GOT is BASED on ASOIAF . Why is it then unreasonable for the fans of the books to expect a faithful adaptation? To do otherwise would strike me as disingenuous and partly deluded, as I do not see how any genuine fan of ASOIAF can judge the show based on its own merits without compromising their opinion of the books.

Another common argument is that 'GOT is still better than most of the crap on TV'. I couldn't care less about what else is on the box. What's important is that GoT represents the books and therefore should do the source material justice on-screen, not bastardize the characters, themes and other elements that GRRM has worked hard to establish in his life's work. I understand how television operates. There's obviously going to be time and budgetary constraints when adapting a massive epic like ASOIAF. There's an awful lot of fat to trim around the edges, and your average fan will be forgiving when it comes to a few liberties here and there. No one asked for a like-for-like transition, that is simply a strawman argument from anyone who cannot handle criticism of the show. Countless movies & TV shows have been adapted from the written page, and most of the successful ones were those that have treated the source with the respect it deserves.

Perhaps, on the surface, the show bears verisimilitude of resembling the books. By and large, the dots are connecting and people are getting to where they need to be. The crux of the matter is when entire character traits, personalities and motivations are completely skewed, the spirit of ASOIAF is betrayed. It's no longer the same creation, but a pale imitation, and why should that be acceptable? One classic example would be the Red Wedding. Robb & Cat are dead, Edmure's a POW, etc. but the events that led us to that result were irreconcilable with the books, owing to the shoddy treatment the Northern storyline received during season 2 onward. HBO could not resist interpolating their own crap into the mix, and its name was Talisa, whose love-shmuck subplot couldn't have been less incongruous with ASOIAF if they had tried. GRRM goes out of his way to deliberately subvert such clichéd tropes in fiction. This one rewrite essentially changed the whole complexion of the story. Robb was aged up like that most of the kids in the books, and in spite of that, he became a bigger child than his teenage counterpart, and Catelyn's role was demoted to make space for HBO's fan-made character.

People say that Stephen Dillane is a fine Stannis, if let down by the script. As far I'm concerned, the character he's playing isn't Stannis, therefore I can't judge Dillane's performance. When did Stannis become a creeper who dry-humps Mel and craves power? This guy called "Stannis" comes across as a weird asshole on the show, which is none surprising given D&D's less than flattering view of the character, as exposed in their behind-the-scenes interviews. Either they are letting their own bias interfere with the adaptation process or they have not done their homework. I'm not sure which one is more egregious.

Weiss & Benioff had one of the greatest fantasy works laid before them, and were left with the relatively simple task of following that. Don't stray too far from the guidelines and you'd have one of the best pieces of television ever. Everything was there for them to make it happen. Instead, the writers and producers at HBO have been content to fill the show with their own glorified fanfiction.

*flame shield on*

you're welcome to your opinion, but don't suggest it's the only way of seeing the show when the decency of the show is completely subjective

[Masamune]

you're welcome to your opinion, but don't suggest it's the only way of seeing the show when the decency of the show is completely subjective

That's a cop-out. Nothing is completely subjective. There are certain ground rules that can be established when judging the objective quality of an adaptation (which GoT is supposed to be).

[Khal-a-bunga]

That's a cop-out. Nothing is completely subjective. There are certain ground rules that can be established when judging the objective quality of an adaptation (which GoT is supposed to be).

No. Game of Thrones is a television show, and it should be judged as such, first and foremost. If you're immediate reaction is to compare the show to the books, then you're adding an additional layer of expectation to the series that it couldn't possibly live up to. That's because you're not only judging it against a series of novels, but you're also judging it against your personal interpretation of those novels, as well. Some characters are more important to you than they are to me, and that likely works both ways. Certain story lines may have more resonance with you than they do with me, and vice versa. The way that you 'hear' the voices of some of the characters in your head may be substantially different in the show, and as such, you feel an immediate disconnect. Maybe someone simply doesn't fit your mental image of the character, and it bothers you every time they appear on-screen. Etc., etc., etc. Point is, there's a lot of excess baggage.

Saying that the book series is better than the show is such a 'No shit!' statement, that I have to laugh when people say it as if it's some revelation they've stumbled upon (not implying that Masamune has done this, to be clear). This is the case with 99.9% of adaptations from one medium to another! There are some instances where the opposite holds true, but they are far and few between. Game of Thrones is a fantastic adaptation of an amazing book series that is much more faithful to the source material than I expected it to be, and also more than it is often given credit for around these parts. But most of all, it's simply great television. Among the best series currently airing, though I don't think it would crack my top ten series of all-time at this point. Is it perfect? Nope, but I don't think any show, book or movie is (and I also believe that their faults can sometimes be a saving grace, to varying degrees, or at the very least they can add a certain charm to some of the material), and I never expected this show to be anything close to perfect. But at the end of the day, the show has enriched the reading experience for me by helping to give certain characters a distinct voice; by fleshing out minor and/or supporting characters who weren't clearly defined in my reading; and has made little improvements (in terms of my sensibilities) all over the place, as it concerns telling the story and bringing the characters to life. Most of all, though, it's just great television. For reference, I'd rank my favorite currently running television shows as such...

10. Sherlock

9. Orange Is The New Black

8. South Park

7. Justified

6. Boardwalk Empire

5. Treme

4. Game of Thrones

3. Louie

2. Breaking Bad

1. Mad Men

Honorable Mentions: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Girls, Veep, Parks & Recreation, Hannibal, The Venture Bros., Archer, Shameless, Rectify, & The Americans

[The Idiots Lantern]

That's a cop-out. Nothing is completely subjective. There are certain ground rules that can be established when judging the objective quality of an adaptation (which GoT is supposed to be).

And yet you are not judging them by any "ground rules." You are judging them by how slavishly they follow the source material.

You called Talisa a "fan character," but anyone not blinded by the she-wasn't-in-the-book factor can see why Talisa was NECCESSARY to make Robb's War in the North storyline work onscreen. she was an ADULT in control of her life which made her more suitable to the aged-up Robb then the helpless pawn Jayne Westerling, she was another POV in Rob's Camp, she was an Outsider who could receive exposition, she could criticize his thinking the way no Northerner could, she could reason with him after he'd shunned Cat, and (this is a big one) we haven't seen exactly how dangerous "marriage for love" IS in Westeros yet. So she was there to show us. Without her, Robb's whole storyline in season 3 would have felt pretty thin. She was something at stake, something tangible for him to be fighting for. Plus she was from Volantis, a place that Will Be Important Later.... as a writer, there's every reason to include her.

And Stannis hasn't been seen at his best yet. You have to beat characters down to build them back up. I think they've actually handled him with a lot of compassion: he's a guy caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't take the chance that Melisandre is telling the truth when she claims she could have won the Battle of Blackwater for him if she'd just been there. He gets a lot of flack for that scene on the beach, but there was a reason for it: Stannis doesn't have anything except her. If she leaves him, he really will have no trump cards left. Of course he's insecure when it looks like she's abandoning him.

But nope, Talisa wasn't in the book, so she must be a terrible awful HBO-mandated fan insertion for ratings. And Stannis hasn't matched what his fanboys imagine he should be like, so he must just Not Be a Favorite and they are scuttling his character on purpose because they just don't get it.

[alienarea]

Currently, I like the show much better than the books.

Starting with aging up the Stark children and condensing random characters, the show made smart changes. Including Talisa.

And honestly, the last two books need smart changes.

[Colonel Green]

You called Talisa a "fan character," but anyone not blinded by the she-wasn't-in-the-book factor can see why Talisa was NECCESSARY to make Robb's War in the North storyline work onscreen.

No, I don't. I think a dramatization of Robb's offscreen book two would have been far more interesting and far better television than what we got in season two. We'd have seen some action with the storming of the Crag, for instance.