|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On June 11 2013 21:52 Telcontar wrote:
What is up with GRRM's motivation to finish the series? Is he stuck again on something or does he not enjoy writing the series anymore? It's so friggin frustrating!
On a couple of interviews he has said that he is more productive with writing than ever, because he wants to stay ahead of the show. But he also has new/extra obligations now.
|
On June 11 2013 19:33 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 19:30 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:25 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:19 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:13 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 18:14 Domus wrote:On June 11 2013 18:03 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
My problem with the show is that almost every change i notice is so bad compared to the original and so unneccessary when you could just go with the book version. Most of the times they change the entire meaning then... I always want to blurt out... But... But... It wasnt like that, its no the way they make it look like There is just a lot wrong with such a statement because it is basic human behavior to: - Focus on flaws - Overlook improvements - Think of a second version/adaption as the non-authentic/lesser version. They have an extensive crew on this production that have probably read the books 10 times as often as you have. I think it is unlikely they are making changes unnecessarily, although you might disagree with their reasons or not know them. that's maybe YOUR opinion. the writers are for sure no fucking gods that know everything better. and the writing of the characters is just plain bad for stannis or dany. there is a little thing though you seem to forget: MONEY. if they don't change as much they can't charge as much. pretty easy explanation why they change things that don't need to be changed. Who are you to judge what doesn't need to be changed? I'd say the writers and G.R.R. Martin have better insight in that than any of us do. maybe they have. maybe they just cater to their researched target audience. blind trust in anyone is still not really helpfull. It isn't but blind criticism isn't either. And I don't think any of us has the necessary insight to really comment on the process of writing, whether it be books or scripts for television. I personally don't like the twists they've made to Stannis' character but I also think he's been a very effective, interesting and polarizing character in the show the way he's been portrayed so I can't really say that they've made a mistake with it. ...... we read the books. we have insight. the criticism of stannis for example is FAR from blind. you even agree and then you excuse the writers for making him a totally different character as he is in the books (as if he wasn't interesting enough in the books...). i just don't understand people like you...
Yes, they changed Stannis a bit. But don't forget that Stannis is not the principal character here, it is Davos and it is Melisandre. I think that might be one of the main reasons for pushing Stannis a bit to the background in favor of them.
|
On June 11 2013 23:41 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 19:33 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:30 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:25 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:19 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:13 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 18:14 Domus wrote:On June 11 2013 18:03 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
My problem with the show is that almost every change i notice is so bad compared to the original and so unneccessary when you could just go with the book version. Most of the times they change the entire meaning then... I always want to blurt out... But... But... It wasnt like that, its no the way they make it look like There is just a lot wrong with such a statement because it is basic human behavior to: - Focus on flaws - Overlook improvements - Think of a second version/adaption as the non-authentic/lesser version. They have an extensive crew on this production that have probably read the books 10 times as often as you have. I think it is unlikely they are making changes unnecessarily, although you might disagree with their reasons or not know them. that's maybe YOUR opinion. the writers are for sure no fucking gods that know everything better. and the writing of the characters is just plain bad for stannis or dany. there is a little thing though you seem to forget: MONEY. if they don't change as much they can't charge as much. pretty easy explanation why they change things that don't need to be changed. Who are you to judge what doesn't need to be changed? I'd say the writers and G.R.R. Martin have better insight in that than any of us do. maybe they have. maybe they just cater to their researched target audience. blind trust in anyone is still not really helpfull. It isn't but blind criticism isn't either. And I don't think any of us has the necessary insight to really comment on the process of writing, whether it be books or scripts for television. I personally don't like the twists they've made to Stannis' character but I also think he's been a very effective, interesting and polarizing character in the show the way he's been portrayed so I can't really say that they've made a mistake with it. ...... we read the books. we have insight. the criticism of stannis for example is FAR from blind. you even agree and then you excuse the writers for making him a totally different character as he is in the books (as if he wasn't interesting enough in the books...). i just don't understand people like you... Yes, they changed Stannis a bit. But don't forget that Stannis is not the principal character here, it is Davos and it is Melisandre. I think that might be one of the main reasons for pushing Stannis a bit to the background in favor of them.
But Davos got portrayed as a powerless do-gooder, whereas in the books HE is the one who shows Stannis why he has to go to the wall.
|
On June 11 2013 23:41 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 19:33 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:30 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:25 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:19 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:13 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 18:14 Domus wrote:On June 11 2013 18:03 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
My problem with the show is that almost every change i notice is so bad compared to the original and so unneccessary when you could just go with the book version. Most of the times they change the entire meaning then... I always want to blurt out... But... But... It wasnt like that, its no the way they make it look like There is just a lot wrong with such a statement because it is basic human behavior to: - Focus on flaws - Overlook improvements - Think of a second version/adaption as the non-authentic/lesser version. They have an extensive crew on this production that have probably read the books 10 times as often as you have. I think it is unlikely they are making changes unnecessarily, although you might disagree with their reasons or not know them. that's maybe YOUR opinion. the writers are for sure no fucking gods that know everything better. and the writing of the characters is just plain bad for stannis or dany. there is a little thing though you seem to forget: MONEY. if they don't change as much they can't charge as much. pretty easy explanation why they change things that don't need to be changed. Who are you to judge what doesn't need to be changed? I'd say the writers and G.R.R. Martin have better insight in that than any of us do. maybe they have. maybe they just cater to their researched target audience. blind trust in anyone is still not really helpfull. It isn't but blind criticism isn't either. And I don't think any of us has the necessary insight to really comment on the process of writing, whether it be books or scripts for television. I personally don't like the twists they've made to Stannis' character but I also think he's been a very effective, interesting and polarizing character in the show the way he's been portrayed so I can't really say that they've made a mistake with it. ...... we read the books. we have insight. the criticism of stannis for example is FAR from blind. you even agree and then you excuse the writers for making him a totally different character as he is in the books (as if he wasn't interesting enough in the books...). i just don't understand people like you... Yes, they changed Stannis a bit. But don't forget that Stannis is not the principal character here, it is Davos and it is Melisandre. I think that might be one of the main reasons for pushing Stannis a bit to the background in favor of them.
wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. davos has the small part that tells stannis story from his perspective.
you didn't give any rationale reason for the change, too. just as the posters on the last page. "it's a TV show" is not a sole reason to change the substance of a character...
|
On June 11 2013 23:56 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 23:41 Domus wrote:On June 11 2013 19:33 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:30 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:25 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 19:19 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 11 2013 19:13 fleeze wrote:On June 11 2013 18:14 Domus wrote:On June 11 2013 18:03 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
My problem with the show is that almost every change i notice is so bad compared to the original and so unneccessary when you could just go with the book version. Most of the times they change the entire meaning then... I always want to blurt out... But... But... It wasnt like that, its no the way they make it look like There is just a lot wrong with such a statement because it is basic human behavior to: - Focus on flaws - Overlook improvements - Think of a second version/adaption as the non-authentic/lesser version. They have an extensive crew on this production that have probably read the books 10 times as often as you have. I think it is unlikely they are making changes unnecessarily, although you might disagree with their reasons or not know them. that's maybe YOUR opinion. the writers are for sure no fucking gods that know everything better. and the writing of the characters is just plain bad for stannis or dany. there is a little thing though you seem to forget: MONEY. if they don't change as much they can't charge as much. pretty easy explanation why they change things that don't need to be changed. Who are you to judge what doesn't need to be changed? I'd say the writers and G.R.R. Martin have better insight in that than any of us do. maybe they have. maybe they just cater to their researched target audience. blind trust in anyone is still not really helpfull. It isn't but blind criticism isn't either. And I don't think any of us has the necessary insight to really comment on the process of writing, whether it be books or scripts for television. I personally don't like the twists they've made to Stannis' character but I also think he's been a very effective, interesting and polarizing character in the show the way he's been portrayed so I can't really say that they've made a mistake with it. ...... we read the books. we have insight. the criticism of stannis for example is FAR from blind. you even agree and then you excuse the writers for making him a totally different character as he is in the books (as if he wasn't interesting enough in the books...). i just don't understand people like you... Yes, they changed Stannis a bit. But don't forget that Stannis is not the principal character here, it is Davos and it is Melisandre. I think that might be one of the main reasons for pushing Stannis a bit to the background in favor of them. wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. davos has the small part that tells stannis story from his perspective. you didn't give any rationale reason for the change, too. just as the posters on the last page. "it's a TV show" is not a sole reason to change the substance of a character...
I don't feel like discussing/defending anything to you, considering you respond to everything in such an upset and entitled manner, full of misunderstanding.
|
i think w/ regards to stannis, the producers made a television decision to change his character. Stannis in the books is basically the spiritual successor to Ned Stark. He's all OCD about duty and honor. The only difference b/w him and ned is that ned was well liked, and stannis was shunned. That's ok in the books, since he is not a POV and we basically see him as a side story through the window of davos(ned was the main storyline in his book). But w/ regards to TV, they couldn' t just make stannis all duty and honor, b/c he would come off as a ned stark ripoff. You don't need 2 idiots obsessed w/ duty and honor in the same tv show, and people will never like stannis as much as they liked sean bean, it would be stupid to even try. So they flipped him into a religious zealot to give him his own thing.
|
whats with the stannis talk? is it all because of the scene in episode 10?
|
On June 12 2013 02:30 czylu wrote:
i think w/ regards to stannis, the producers made a television decision to change his character. Stannis in the books is basically the spiritual successor to Ned Stark. He's all OCD about duty and honor. The only difference b/w him and ned is that ned was well liked, and stannis was shunned. That's ok in the books, since he is not a POV and we basically see him as a side story through the window of davos(ned was the main storyline in his book). But w/ regards to TV, they couldn' t just make stannis all duty and honor, b/c he would come off as a ned stark ripoff. You don't need 2 idiots obsessed w/ duty and honor in the same tv show, and people will never like stannis as much as they liked sean bean, it would be stupid to even try. So they flipped him into a religious zealot to give him his own thing.
TV viewers aren't stupid. And while this whole discussion is a what-if scenario about might-have-beens, I feel they could easily have portrayed Stannis as the book-Stannis without making him look like Ned Stark II.
Hell, just the Davos backstory is enough to make that abundantly clear. Ned Stark would never chop off Davos' fingers just to make the point that smuggling is wrong, then make him a lord.
He also wouldn't stoop to using "evil magic" to murder his brother, rather than face him in battle, although he would, like Stannis, insist that the only way of doing things is the lawful way.
In D&D terms, Stannis is lawful neutral, where Ned is lawful good. In the show, Stannis is not lawful anything. He's pussy wipped and blindly following Melisandre around.
|
On June 12 2013 02:47 jinorazi wrote:
whats with the stannis talk? is it all because of the scene in episode 10?
At least for me, thats when I realized that season 3 Stannis had been utterly changed for the worse in the TV show. I'm not going to bother putting book quotes that others have already posted, but the book version Stannis was my favorite character, being lawful, dutiful, and most of all fair and reasonable, such as actually listening to Davros' opinions. TV Stannis feels like an out of touch minor character. The criticisms leveled towards the show on his front are extremely valid.
|
wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros.
But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine.
|
On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine.
In the books, Stannis is an end justifies the means kinda man. He sees it as his god-given duty to be the king of Westeros, and the question of whether he even wants to be king is never really addressed.
He doesn't have a strong army, so he feels that the correct course of action is to use magic, which he does have. I never get the feeling he is blindly following Melisandre. While she has done some incredible magic and he cautiously believes that that power comes from the Red God, I never get the feeling he is simply doing whatever she tells him to do. That, however, is EXACTLY how Stannis has been portrayed this season. First he was a whiny little bitch when Melisandre went to fetch Gendry. Then he was all pussy-wipped this last episode.
|
Awesome last episode, quit babbling, you guys have 10 month to get over Stannis.
"The king is tired, see him to his chambers"
|
On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine.
Does he ever truly preach water though? He may only eat bread and that usually goes hand in hand with water not wine, but that does not mean he cannot drink wine.
Duty and honor tend to go hand in hand, but if you can only fulfill your duty and claim your rights by acting dishonestly, then what should a man do? I believe Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon disagree on that. Stannis values duty and rights, Ned valued honor*. While we get the sense that Stannis is not happy about having to forsake his honor, I don't think we ever have him preach against it.
* I believe Robb was the same. He married Jeyne to avoid dishonoring her. However as a king his duty was to the realm, and he should have valued the Frey alliance over the dishonor of a girl from a fairly minor house.
|
While the tywin scenes were good I hated the Theon ones. His transformation into Reek was just abrupt and sudden. His teeth are not broken. He also doesn't look like someone who was tortured and in filth. He is far too clean and still seems fairly well built for someone being tortured. It would have been better if they had shown that Theon had undergo a big transformation with missing fingers, toes (just hinting would have been enough after what they already showed) and covered in filth. Then his breaking and transformation into Reek would have made a lot of sense.
Ultimately it makes the show Ramsay to be a far nicer man than the book Ramsay. TV viewers may still think Ramsay is carrying out northerner justice in a more sadistic way or some other BS. I think the entire backstory of Ramsay and Reek and how seriously messed up they were was needed here. In the end Ramsay should evoke enough revulsion that it should result in viewers sympathizing with Theon later on. I don't think that has been achieved yet in the show.
|
theon's story arc got tiresome real quick so i don't think adding more torture/sadistic scenes would make tv viewers more likely to sympathize with him. he also betrayed the starks man!!!!! (tv watcher voice). and let's be honest, when yara gave the huge hurrah i'm going to save theon's life, who really cared? the final dany scene and theon/ironborn scene (although the actor that played balon was good) was probably the worst part of the episode.
|
On June 12 2013 10:12 kidleaderr wrote:
theon's story arc got tiresome real quick so i don't think adding more torture/sadistic scenes would make tv viewers more likely to sympathize with him. he also betrayed the starks man!!!!! (tv watcher voice). and let's be honest, when yara gave the huge hurrah i'm going to save theon's life, who really cared? the final dany scene and theon/ironborn scene (although the actor that played balon was good) was probably the worst part of the episode.
Actually I think the torture scenes they showed were probably more than enough. I cringed at the pinky flaying and couldn't stand more of it if they want to show more. Not all the stuff needs to be shown and I think they needed to imply more and show less. I think showing Theon as broken down and weak was more important than showing the actual torture.
|
i like what did they did theon though, if they stuck with the book he would have disappeared throughout season 2.5 and 3 then show up all of a sudden as Reek. then the viewers would be like "wtf happened?", then what? flash back or people talking of what happened seems to be the only option. so might as well tell the story as it happens.
only thing is when i was reading the book i wasnt sure if he got his dick cut off, maybe i missed it but tv show made that obvious.
|
On June 12 2013 09:55 WickedBit wrote:
While the tywin scenes were good I hated the Theon ones. His transformation into Reek was just abrupt and sudden. His teeth are not broken. He also doesn't look like someone who was tortured and in filth. He is far too clean and still seems fairly well built for someone being tortured. It would have been better if they had shown that Theon had undergo a big transformation with missing fingers, toes (just hinting would have been enough after what they already showed) and covered in filth. Then his breaking and transformation into Reek would have made a lot of sense.
Ultimately it makes the show Ramsay to be a far nicer man than the book Ramsay. TV viewers may still think Ramsay is carrying out northerner justice in a more sadistic way or some other BS. I think the entire backstory of Ramsay and Reek and how seriously messed up they were was needed here. In the end Ramsay should evoke enough revulsion that it should result in viewers sympathizing with Theon later on. I don't think that has been achieved yet in the show.
I think his transformation is just beginning. Last episode Ramsay told him his new name for the first time, but that doesn't mean Theon is Reek yet.
|
On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine.
Last episode was supposed to be the key moment when Stannis gets his shit together.
Just because he killed his brother it doesn't mean he's some one-dimensional, power-hungry, fanatical villain, who laughs like a maniac at the top of his dark tower like he was portrayed last episode. Not to mention being pussy whipped.
The writers just completely misunderstand his character as evident from their interviews.
|
On June 12 2013 03:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +wtf... maybe you don't think stannis is a "key" character. i for sure think he plays a major role on his own in the books. he represents the "law" and "balance" in westeros. But you remember he killed his own brother with some kind of spooky sex magic and burned people alive to gain power? Besides from a few moments when Stannis actually gets his shit together he mostly preaches water but drinks wine.
This argument always grinds my gears. Renly was going to have Stannis killed the next day in battle, Stannis merely struck first and was protecting his own life.
The only difference with that and what Dany did to take Yunkai was Stannis used magical means. Both used 'under-handed' tactics
You're just a selective reader
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
