|
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 May 13 2015 18:26 Geo.Rion wrote:
So this Jorah taking the place of Connington makes sense.... somehow... not sure how really... he continues his unlikely quest to get back into Danny's inner circle, even though he's mortally infected with a viral disease.
Ok then...
The main thing I wonder is what Jorah/Tyrion are set to trigger. In the books, the stonemen are used to force the hand of Connington: Connington needs to act before incapacitated, Tyrion's thirst for revenge against the world sets Aegon's idea of a conquest and both factors trigger the early move to Westeros with a mercenary army.
Tyrion has then served his purpose and is captured by Jorah to provide an insider view of the slaver armies converging on Mereen
Since Aegon doesn't exist, the first part seems impossible in the show. The same potential to make something happen exists, but what ?
The siege of Mereen does not seem close, I guess Jorah/Tyrion could get caught and enslaved to give us a first view of the marching armies. That would make the infection of Jorah kind of useless though.
|
On May 13 2015 21:27 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 18:17 disciple wrote:On May 13 2015 17:56 -Archangel- wrote:On May 13 2015 09:16 Vorenius wrote:On May 12 2015 22:32 disciple wrote:
I dont mind all the changes yet but my biggest complaint is stuffing too much shit in the individual scenes. The Jorah Tyrion scene was a prime example - D&D felt the need to show Valyria, pop Drogon in the sky, have a fight with stonemen, semi cliffhanger with Tyrion drawning (the episode shouldve ended right then and there btw) and to top it all Jorah got infected with greyscale. All that in like 2-3 minutes or less. What the fuck honestly. No pun intended but the show feels like a D&D game - while you pass through the old ruins, stonemen attack you, fortitude save failed - greyscale infected, your companion is attacked reflex save successful. Previously the show took its time with the punch scenes, now I feel there's some super desperate attempt to progress everything as fast as possible. Every scene has some sort of foreshadowing or is someone telling a story. I know exactly how you feel. The first few minutes of them sailing through Valyria was very cool. Seeing the ruined civilization, that we've only heard of in 3rd person from the books, was awesome. Jorah surprising Tyrion by knowing the verse he was quoting was a nice touch. I would have been so happy if they had just kept sailing past it (why the fuck would they go that close to land anyway, when they are no where near their destination?). It was a nice scene on it's own. There was no need for a zombie attack. Of course that's just my preference. Seeing people complain about lack of action obviously explains why they did it. I wish all those people would just go watch the walking dead, so HBO could make GoT not suck, instead of catering to unsullied  . You do know that same attack happened in the books as well when Tyrion sailed through there? He was in different company but still, it happened. Now we are going to complain as well when they do keep to book material (somewhat :D) ? You couldve just said the attack happened and end there cause the other facts around it are completely different. Even if the attack itself is an important plot point in the book going through valyria specifically showing drogon and jorah getting greyscale in the same scene isnt. At this point I think D&D play the show on the premise of cheap surprises and thrills - you know what people will like to see? Old Valyria, and dragons and shit. Sometimes scenes have to be written for their own sake,but they just try super hard to tie in everything the show watchers have heard about and bother to notice if its repeated often enough. Remember the Tywin and Arya scenes? Those were not in the books either but they showed incredibly cool and meaningful character interaction - in fact I wish those scenes are in the books. And in those scenes there was no forced exposition, no foreshadowing, no need for a lot of shit to happen in 2 minutes. It was just good dialog which didn't ultimately have a plot purpose but so what? Now every bit of dialog excels the plot in some way or people just happen to drop important knowledge bombs for the viewers convenience or brimmed with action that take the characters from one set piece to another. It's fake boring and dumb. What you said here has been happening for much longer than this season. Basically from season 2 and onwards.For example they skipped most of Arya travels and all the fun parts and bonding. Just showed a few set pieces here and there and moved the plot forward. And unsullied have been complaining from the start how it all seems strange. If the show actually followed books more closely by letting POV chapters play out longer and slower in the show it all would have been better with more character development and less set pieces and lore dumps.
I'd be all for that. Only then we'd end up with 14 seasons instead of 7. Granted, if well done I'd be all for that, too, but it is a tad unrealistic, no? And don't say that they'd only need to cut out the stupid additional stuff like Eunuch romances. Those only take up a few minutes per episode at most. Even if they'd do that, 90% of the show would still be exposition and moving the plot forward.
|
Two major things with the show that book readers always seem to conveniently ignore when complaining;
a) The books are told POV, so characters can be alone. You can't have a character alone in the show, otherwise they would just be talking to themselves like a crazy person. This is why we have Jaime and Bronn, Tyrion and Jorah, Brienne and Pod, etc.
b) Actors age. Bran is 7 years old when the books start, and 9 years old currently. Bran in the show has already aged twice that. You have to take a much faster pace with the show, otherwise you end up with a 20 year old actor trying to play a child. They already had to age up the characters for this very reason.
You can't just take a book and transfer it word-to-word into a media format, and I feel like they've done better than expected at converting the story so far.
|
I doubt there will be a siege of Mereen, it should already be taking place by now. It seems likely that story line has been cut. Xaro Xhoan Daxos was presumably killed in season 2, there was no casting news about him returning. Khal Jhaqo was killed in season one. Certainly they could replace him with random unnamed Khal, but there wasn't any casting news to suggest that happened and it would require a bunch of casting to fill a khalasar. Plus killing off Selmy suggests that Dany isn't going to be gone for long where Selmy would need to rule in her place.
On May 12 2015 05:46 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 05:09 karazax wrote:
so what's the point of casting Myranda and giving her so much screen time? [...]
Make your characters consistent. Preferably with the books when possible, because why not? [...]
Why change things just for the sake of change, if you could follow the book without adding any cast, budget increase or screen time increase? [...]
as if it is mutually exclusive to stay as true to the books as possible and have non-readers enjoy the show. [...]
Would non-readers not like the show if Jaime didn't still love Cersei?
Everything here makes it look like you still operate on the basic (and not at all unreasonable, mind you) assumption that an adaption that stays as true to the original as possible is inherently better and something the person adapting the material should inherently strive for. The idea that there needs to be a very good reason to change something, or it should not be changed. In principle I would agree with that. Let's only make changes when the budget or the lack of time (to film or to show an episode) dictates it. In practice, however, there are a myriad of other factors you need to consider, and life just isn't quite as simple. Oftentimes you have a butterfly effect of small changes that lead to big changes. Oftentimes you have the necessary changes to make that you acknowledge (lack of money and time and attention span of the viewers), or there's a very TV specific thing to consider (You can't hide the fact that Barristan is Barristan when he goes to Dany, so he introduced himself right away in the show, instead of waiting some weeks like in the books).
They actually create more butterfly effects when they change the entire motivations and beliefs of a character. It leads to contradictions like Cersei not caring about going public with her relationship with Jaime in season four, when she cared a bunch in season one, and Jaime suddenly caring about Myrcella when he didn't care at all when Joffrey died.
Why give Myranda screen time? To show that Ramsay is not just a psychotic monster, but a dude who has to juggle his girlfriends in his own, unique way (Making him a good deal more interesting). To give Sansa a character to interact with that is not Ramsay or Theon. To create some tension for the viewers (is she really going to toss Sansa to the hounds?). And yes, to show some titties. And, presumably, to have her killed off eventually in one way or another.
Ramsay is a psychotic monster though. I actually liked Myranda's scenes in a stand alone sense. In fact you can argue that it was one of the only nude sex scenes in the whole series where the conversation revolved around the participants talking about their own relationship and not sexposition or just mindlessly filling a boobs quota. Still there is a ton of book characters they have to cut to limit the cast size, and the ones they don't cut get very limited screen time. So it's questionable as to why Ramsay needs a completely made up girl friend on the side to make him more "well rounded", or why she needs roughly as much screen time as a bunch of the main cast characters get. If the excuse for cutting something from the book is the cast is too big and we don't have enough screen time, then making up a completely new character who doesn't fill in for a character they have cut and giving them a bunch of screen time to create an entirely original plot line contradicts both of those limitations.
Why does Jaime go to Dorne? I agree that it's a bit silly if you think about it, sending a well known member of the ruling family who can be identified in a laughably easy manner ("show me your hand") to a secret mission isn't exactly a good idea. But, eh.
Whatever. I can live with small inconsistencies like that. Every single TV show has them, and I dare say every book has them, too. Certainly book series spanning thousands of pages.
Why did they send him there, though? Because the Riverlands plot has been pretty much eliminated early on in the show, and introducing it now would create yet another location that would take up a certain amount of time to show. And since the Riverland plot was gone, they had to find something for Jaime to do. They couldn't have him in King's Landing thanks to what will happen to Cersei, either.
They could have sent him to the Riverlands. They did have the Blackfish escape from the Red Wedding, and Bolton was concerned he would make it to Riverrun and hold it against the Iron Throne in Robb's name. They haven't bothered to mention what happened there since then. Edmure is still a captive of the Freys. Or they send Jaime no where. If he isn't following his book story line, or even state of mind, then he doesn't HAVE to leave King's Landing. Staying makes more sense than what they have come up with at any rate.
In addition, Dorne is a new location with more than a handful new, important characters. It is important to toss a well known character into the mix for such things to keep people's interest ("why should I care about all these new guys?"), so Jaime seems like a natural fit. On top of that, we have Bronn, who is an awesome and popular character that, if we'd go by the books, would be written out of the show by now. Putting him together with Jaime allows for quite some entertaining scenes that people look forward to. On top of that, we now will have Jaime, a character who is personally quite invested in saving Myrcella, instead of some Kingsguard dude we barely care about, making it all much more relatable. And if there's danger, we actually care about Jaime or Bronn potentially dying, instead of some other random dude who might have been sent to save her.
If they are set on drastically changing things, I would have preferred they send Lancel instead of Jaime. It would serve a multitude of purposes. 1) Cersei gets Lancel out of King's Landing while sending him on a dangerous mission ala his quest to retake Dragon Stone 2) gives him an alternative way to get put on deaths door since the siege on Dragon Stone seems very unlikely. 3) He wouldn't be instantly recognizeable and he could have more to his character than just being the gay guy with the new anti-homosexual plot line.
Not to mention that from this season on, they're pretty much out of plot from the books anyhow and need to make up the story as they go along anyhow. Sure there's still major plot points to consider, but with D&D's knowledge of the end of the whole story, they need to change the course of various plots now so it seamlessly switches into their version of GoT, instead of having a hard cut where you go from the book plots straight to the show plots. I assume that that would explain Sansa's storyline, for instance. We don't know where Sansa will end up at the very end, but they do, and they're already making sure she's well on her way.
They have two long books worth of plot to cover. Lots of which they are choosing to skip over. They chose to condense most of 2 books into one season, but that should mean even less filler material, not more. Obviously Selmy has at least one chapter of his own in Winds of Winter, and who knows how many more that they cut. Sansa's chapters from Winds of Winter have been cut. Things were going to be greatly condensed even if they spent 2 seasons on the combination of Feast and Dance, but they aren't making up completely original story lines because they don't have enough book material to pull from.
As for Sansa, I doubt this story line helps push her on her way. They are doing what they do with most of their original story lines. They make something up, then jump back to whatever happened in the books when they hit a major plot point they want to cover as if their changes didn't happen.
Bottom line is I think they could make a more faithful adaptation and cater to the non-readers. There will always be changes of some degree, and there will always be complaints by someone for even the tiniest change. But I don't think it's too much for characters to hold the same motivations, beliefs and state of mind as their book counterparts even if the events they are involved in have to change to fit TV. Otherwise they really aren't the same character except in name. If you don't think that is possible I suspect we will never agree on that point.
On May 12 2015 19:37 Spaylz wrote:
Jeez, reading the Unsullied thread is such a good way to see that Conti is right.
Half of the posts in the last 5 pages are about how the poster thinks the season is boring, and that nothing is happening. And honestly, the show already has had a lot more happen than the books. Going in, we knew that S5 was likely going to be some sort of transitional season to set up for everything going into full motion, but well, they didn't.
And these are TLers; I'd like to think the average poster on TL is relatively smart. So many of them forget events and characters! It's crazy.
To me it shows that their changes to make it "better" for non-readers were unsuccessful. They condense so much that it's hard to feel anything for most of the characters. What did show_Selmy even contribute for the average non-reader to care about him? I suspect most non-readers let out a collective yawn when he died for as little impact as he has had on the story. They rush major plot points like Jon being elected Lord Commander, and then waste time on filler like Missandei and Greyworm. It's not that nothing has happened, but that they haven't made the characters have enough depth for viewers to care when something does happen. And they don't understand that the set up to a major event is just as important as the event. For example Dany being courted by Hizdahr and wrestling with the decision to marry over several chapters in the book vs imprisoning him, threatening to feed him to the dragons and then inexplicably informing him that they are going to marry because it happened in the book. They might as well just keep making up their own story at that point rather than force in a book plot line that no longer makes any sense.
|
On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If the excuse for cutting something from the book is the cast is too big and we don't have enough screen time, then making up a completely new character who doesn't fill in for a character they have cut and giving them a bunch of screen time to create an entirely original plot line contradicts both of those limitations.
This remains a crass oversimplification no matter how many times you say it. It's simply not that simple.
On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
They could have sent him to the Riverlands. They did have the Blackfish escape from the Red Wedding, and Bolton was concerned he would make it to Riverrun and hold it against the Iron Throne in Robb's name. They haven't bothered to mention what happened there since then. Edmure is still a captive of the Freys.
And then they would have to cut Dorne and you would be here complaining about how they cut Dorne and how it doesn't make sense because Dorne is important. Yay.
On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
Or they send Jaime no where. If he isn't following his book story line, or even state of mind, then he doesn't HAVE to leave King's Landing. Staying makes more sense than what they have come up with at any rate.
And then you would be complaining how it doesn't make sense for Jaime to stay in King's Landing, and what the hell is Jaime going to do when Cersei would be imprisoned, and you'd complain about Jaime not doing enough to free her.
On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If they are set on drastically changing things, I would have preferred they send Lancel instead of Jaime. It would serve a multitude of purposes. 1) Cersei gets Lancel out of King's Landing while sending him on a dangerous mission ala his quest to retake Dragon Stone 2) gives him an alternative way to get put on deaths door since the siege on Dragon Stone seems very unlikely. 3) He wouldn't be instantly recognizeable and he could have more to his character than just being the gay guy with the new anti-homosexual plot line.
You mean Loras, right? Because Cersei sending Lancel would be hilarious and I would totally want to see that. 
But, well.. then you would be complaining how it doesn't make sense that Cersei would trust Loras of all people to save her daughter, and that she might as well have sent Margaery and.. well, you get the idea.
On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
They have two long books worth of plot to cover. Lots of which they are choosing to skip over.
Yes, because they have two more long, unwritten(!) books worth of plot to cover after this, and they only have 2 more seasons to do this. They will have to skip a whole lot more to fit it into just 2 seasons. It sucks, but that's what has got to be done.
|
9070 Posts
I think they could still had Walder Frey lay claims for some more lands / influence after Tywin dies. Then he could do some bad shit and turn his back on the Lannisters. Then Jaime could go north and sort things out. For the show viewer this might have been a great way to excel Jaime's arc - by making him deal with one of the established super villains instead of having him in Dorne which got a tone of hype with Oberyn and will make his motives to be there confusing for the show viewers - like the dude is cool and all but the dornish are legit so who are you going to root for when Jaime inevitably meets with sand snakes doran etc and has a confrontation.
|
Yes, because they have two more long, unwritten(!) books worth of plot to cover after this, and they only have 2 more seasons to do this. They will have to skip a whole lot more to fit it into just 2 seasons. It sucks, but that's what has got to be done.
AFAIK HBO said they would be totally cool with having more seasons, but D&D don't really want to do that.
So that is not entirely true
+ Show Spoiler +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If the excuse for cutting something from the book is the cast is too big and we don't have enough screen time, then making up a completely new character who doesn't fill in for a character they have cut and giving them a bunch of screen time to create an entirely original plot line contradicts both of those limitations. This remains a crass oversimplification no matter how many times you say it. It's simply not that simple.
Well there is truth to it, i would be interested to seee your perspective though.
Not gonna comment on the rest when all you do is: "you would complain anyway, that's why no arguments you now bring are legit!"
|
On May 13 2015 23:36 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, because they have two more long, unwritten(!) books worth of plot to cover after this, and they only have 2 more seasons to do this. They will have to skip a whole lot more to fit it into just 2 seasons. It sucks, but that's what has got to be done. AFAIK HBO said they would be totally cool with having more seasons, but D&D don't really want to do that. So that is not entirely true
Sure. HBO would be cool with the show having 20 seasons as long as it remains successful. They would also be cool with telling D&D that they better finish the show within the next season if it is not successful anymore, regardless of how many season's worth of plot still remains to be shown. I don't know about you, but I very much prefer the showrunners having a long-term plan for when exactly to end the show, rather than going for as long as they're allowed to, one season at a time.
On May 13 2015 23:36 The_Red_Viper wrote: Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If the excuse for cutting something from the book is the cast is too big and we don't have enough screen time, then making up a completely new character who doesn't fill in for a character they have cut and giving them a bunch of screen time to create an entirely original plot line contradicts both of those limitations. This remains a crass oversimplification no matter how many times you say it. It's simply not that simple. Well there is truth to it, i would be interested to seee your perspective though. Not gonna comment on the rest when all you do is: "you would complain anyway, that's why no arguments you now bring are legit!"
That is very much my point, though: People complain about changes, and then go and suggest changes that are similarly vastly different from the books. And somehow they don't make the connection that they would be just as annoyed by those similar changes, or that they are opening up an entirely different can of worms they haven't thought of yet. I mean, sending Loras to rescue Myrcella? Seriously? You don't see a single problem with that?
And yes, there is truth to it, but it is not an absolute truth as he makes it out to be. There is a butterfly effect to every change you make. We already agree that some changes are absolutely necessary (due to time/money/character constraints). Therefore you need to deal with the butterfly, and one of the possible ways to deal with it is to introduce new characters that fill out partial roles that cut characters (or plots or whatnot) had. For Ramsay, for instance, it's the simple need for him to have someone to talk to that isn't his father or Sansa or Theon. Externalize his true thoughts and feelings. The writers decided that they need to do that. You may disagree with that, but it's not the blatantly wrong decision that some claim it is.
|
Sure. HBO would be cool with the show having 20 seasons as long as it remains successful. They would also be cool with telling D&D that they better finish the show within the next season if it is not successful anymore, regardless of how many season's worth of plot still remains to be shown. I don't know about you, but I very much prefer the showrunners having a long-term plan for when exactly to end the show, rather than going for as long as they're allowed to, one season at a time.
HBO isn't THAT concerned about having "successful" shows as other networks though.
They know as long as they produce high quality television they gain something out from it.
GoT is already in that safe zone where it will never really flop anymore, as long as the product they produce is good enough.
Having a source material only makes it easier in that regard (even though they don't really have that anymore i guess, but ONLY cause they decided to do TWO books in one season)
That is very much my point, though: People complain about changes, and then go and suggest changes that are similarly vastly different from the books. And somehow they don't make the connection that they would be just as annoyed by those similar changes, or that they are opening up an entirely different can of worms they haven't thought of yet. I mean, sending Loras to rescue Myrcella? Seriously? You don't see a single problem with that?
And yes, there is truth to it, but it is not an absolute truth as he makes it out to be. There is a butterfly effect to every change you make. We already agree that some changes are absolutely necessary (due to time/money/character constraints). Therefore you need to deal with the butterfly, and one of the possible ways to deal with it is to introduce new characters that fill out partial roles that cut characters (or plots or whatnot) had. For Ramsay, for instance, it's the simple need for him to have someone to talk to that isn't his father or Sansa or Theon. Externalize his true thoughts and feelings. The writers decided that they need to do that. You may disagree with that, but it's not the blatantly wrong decision that some claim it is.
Well i didn't wanna say that his suggestions might be better (i didn't think about it), i am just saying that your way to dismiss his post was kinda meh
The point is that the decision to change things to "streamline" things oftentimes makes it neccessary to expand on other places which kinda defeats the purpose.
So maybe you could have done it closer to the books (which i still think would be the optimum, cause GRRM is a better writer than these guys). Sure, it isn't entirely possible, but a lot of the time i keep thinking: "hm they could have done it closer if they wanted to when i look at where their priorities are now".
But yeah, the show is obviously still pretty good, an HBO budget certainly helps
|
On May 13 2015 23:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If the excuse for cutting something from the book is the cast is too big and we don't have enough screen time, then making up a completely new character who doesn't fill in for a character they have cut and giving them a bunch of screen time to create an entirely original plot line contradicts both of those limitations.
This remains a crass oversimplification no matter how many times you say it. It's simply not that simple.
Actually it's not an oversimplification and you saying it is without anything backing up your argument doesn't make for a particularly compelling reply. If a character doesn't advance a book story line in any way then it's pretty hard to argue that they are necessary. Myranda's only "necessary" because they want to fit in another actress in who is willing to get nude on a regular basis. It's a reason, I'd argue it's not a good one when they have so much story to cover. What did we really gain in "insight" about Ramsay from her scenes? That Sansa is hot and he still wants to bang Myranda, who shouldn't even exist, after his marriage? What character development. That's a plot critical inclusion, but Arianne Martel (another character who could have had her own nude scenes from the book) isn't worth casting? Or how about a scene with Dany and Dario which also could have fit a book relevant sex scene? Why not have them discussing their current relationship before Dany surprise decides to marry Hizdahr for no reason other than it happened in the book in completely different context?
On May 13 2015 23:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
They could have sent him to the Riverlands. They did have the Blackfish escape from the Red Wedding, and Bolton was concerned he would make it to Riverrun and hold it against the Iron Throne in Robb's name. They haven't bothered to mention what happened there since then. Edmure is still a captive of the Freys.
And then they would have to cut Dorne and you would be here complaining about how they cut Dorne and how it doesn't make sense because Dorne is important. Yay.
Who said that was in place of cutting Dorne? Besides if the only thing of relevance that happens in Dorne this season is Myrcella getting scarred, why is including Dorne that big a deal? With no Arianne nor Quentyn, Doran's entire plan for revenge no longer exists in any way close to it's book form. They want the big event of Myrcella's scar, but once again they ignore all the circumstances leading up to it that made the event matter. As it stands, they could have had Myrcella scarred in an attack by Ellaria in revenge for Oberyn and have Doran rescue her in one or two scenes and be done with Dorne for this season for as little book relevant plot they are going to cover. And yes people would complain about losing Arianne, the sand snakes, and Quentyn, but since we know most of those were going to be cut anyway then they wouldn't be missing much.
On May 13 2015 23:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
Or they send Jaime no where. If he isn't following his book story line, or even state of mind, then he doesn't HAVE to leave King's Landing. Staying makes more sense than what they have come up with at any rate. And then you would be complaining how it doesn't make sense for Jaime to stay in King's Landing, and what the hell is Jaime going to do when Cersei would be imprisoned, and you'd complain about Jaime not doing enough to free her.
What can Jaime do to free her even if he was in the capital? Threaten them with one arm? It's their own fault for making Jaime still be in love with Cersei, otherwise if Jaime stayed in King's Landing he wouldn't do anything about Cersei for the same reason he refuses to go help her in the books. He no longer cares about her. No matter what people will complain about changes, but at least make changes that make sense in the context of the shows other changes. Too many times they don't.
On May 13 2015 23:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
If they are set on drastically changing things, I would have preferred they send Loras instead of Jaime. It would serve a multitude of purposes. 1) Cersei gets Loras out of King's Landing while sending him on a dangerous mission ala his quest to retake Dragon Stone 2) gives him an alternative way to get put on deaths door since the siege on Dragon Stone seems very unlikely. 3) He wouldn't be instantly recognizeable and he could have more to his character than just being the gay guy with the new anti-homosexual plot line.
But, well.. then you would be complaining how it doesn't make sense that Cersei would trust Loras of all people to save her daughter, and that she might as well have sent Margaery and.. well, you get the idea.
Yes Loras, not Lancel. And it was an example I made up in 2 minutes just to come up with something that is more plausible than Jaime going, and to show that I might not like a change, but I can understand it's necessity and would like it to make sense in the context of the show. Would people complain? Absolutely. I might even not like it. But at least it makes sense in the context of the show more so than Jaime going, which he can't even explain how that makes sense. Besides they shouldn't be going to "save" Myrcella in the first place. Ser Balon Swann was merely going to Dorne to check up on her, not save her.
On May 13 2015 23:18 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:57 karazax wrote:
They have two long books worth of plot to cover. Lots of which they are choosing to skip over.
Yes, because they have two more long, unwritten(!) books worth of plot to cover after this, and they only have 2 more seasons to do this. They will have to skip a whole lot more to fit it into just 2 seasons. It sucks, but that's what has got to be done.
Which means they don't need to be making up their own completely original story lines, they have plenty that they are cutting to choose from. Anyway I suspect we could go round and round with this forever. If you want to debate particular changes then that's fine. Saying that a different change wouldn't matter because I would complain about something different is completely speculative and not particularly compelling. If you think the way they have adapted the series is the only way it could have been done successfully then we are never going to agree on that point.
|
lol wat balon swann was sent to bring her back to King's Landing on the pretense of visiting tommen, but in reality to get her away from dorne
|
On May 14 2015 01:44 karazax wrote:
If a character doesn't advance a book story line in any way then it's pretty hard to argue that they are necessary.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop here. You want a faithful adaption of the books. And, hell, I would really like one, too. But I know that it is utterly unrealistic to get one, so there's no point in wanting one. We won't get one. Ever. No amount of foot-stomping and complaining will change that.
Instead, I'm trying to look at what we can reasonably get that will satisfy both book readers and non-book readers and HBO executives and promoters and just about everyone who has anything to do with the show. And that includes a whole lot of sacrifices for the book readers, just like it includes sacrifices for everyone else. It's a compromise. You don't want that compromise, you want a show that is the perfect representation of the books. All your arguments for how they should do X instead of Y is basically an argument to disregard anyone's needs but the book readers'. There's no point in arguing against that when you seem to disregard the very possibility of this trying to be more than a faithful adaption of the books (because if it were, it would never have gone into production in the first place).
And, just to end with a general disclaimer: Yes, GRRM is far better writer than the show's writers. And the books are far better than the show in terms of writing and consistency and such. And yes, I don't care much for Ramsay's girlfriend, nor do I care for the Missandei and Grey Worm romance. But I understand why those scenes exist, and I understand that their existence is not outright stupidity or incompetence or hatred for the books.
|
Lots of interesting discussion going on. On a side-note, I would be curious to see how much screen time has been allotted to the non-book non-crucial scenes (i.e. Ramsay and Myranda, Missandei and Grey Worm; or the Dreadfort scene in S4). If it adds up to a significant amount of time, it could become a lot more relevant to this kind of discussion.
The thing is, I really do not feel like they had a clear plan laid out before the first season began. Yes, they are restricting the cast a lot, but they are also adding a LOT of arguably pointless characters at the same time. There have been some important characters whom we haven't seen in one or two seasons, and who had a bit of a spotlight. I am mostly thinking about Blackfish, Edmure Tully, hell even the Greatjon. More important characters who have not been introduced at all (Lady Stoneheart, all of the Greyjoys).
My point is that, as book readers, we should be able to discern some sort of pattern, but I find it difficult to do. Characters are showing up and either dying or disappearing without explanation. I am fine with changes, but maybe they could have been more consistent. Maybe, instead of casting extra people like Myranda or the Sand Snakes, they could have taken characters like the Blackfish and invent him a new story, to somehow keep him and Edmure relevant. This works for more than just one character, as the Brotherhood Without Banners would also have been a great band to keep around.
These sort of tropes would show some variety, would keep the cast consistent, and would give less of an impression that everyone is appearing and vanishing left and right. For example, I'm really curious to see how non-book readers will react when Bran pops back up.
|
On May 14 2015 02:20 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 01:44 karazax wrote:
If a character doesn't advance a book story line in any way then it's pretty hard to argue that they are necessary.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop here. You want a faithful adaption of the books. And, hell, I would really like one, too. But I know that it is utterly unrealistic to get one, so there's no point in wanting one. We won't get one. Ever. No amount of foot-stomping and complaining will change that. Instead, I'm trying to look at what we can reasonably get that will satisfy both book readers and non-book readers and HBO executives and promoters and just about everyone who has anything to do with the show. And that includes a whole lot of sacrifices for the book readers, just like it includes sacrifices for everyone else. It's a compromise. You don't want that compromise, you want a show that is the perfect representation of the books. All your arguments for how they should do X instead of Y is basically an argument to disregard anyone's needs but the book readers'. There's no point in arguing against that when you seem to disregard the very possibility of this trying to be more than a faithful adaption of the books (because if it were, it would never have gone into production in the first place). And, just to end with a general disclaimer: Yes, GRRM is far better writer than the show's writers. And the books are far better than the show in terms of writing and consistency and such. And yes, I don't care much for Ramsay's girlfriend, nor do I care for the Missandei and Grey Worm romance. But I understand why those scenes exist, and I understand that their existence is not outright stupidity or incompetence or hatred for the books.
You seem to claim that D&D do the best they possibly can, which i just don't agree with.
It's not about a 1:1 adaption, but the closer to the books the better. People understand that it's impossible to film ASOIAF word for word, but that doesn't mean that D&D do as well as they could either.
This discussion doesn't lead anywhere when the one side says: "but the books", i agree.
It isn't constructive when the other side says : "there is no way this could have been adapted better" either though.
One nice example imo is the fight against the skeletons before Bran meets Bloodraven. They presumably invested a lot of money into that scene instead of following the book part. Then we see Bloodraven and i think it is fair to say that it was VERY underwhelming. That shows pretty well that D&D have the wrong priorities oftentimes.
|
I actually read that they had quite some plans to make Bloodraven to look awesome (they even submitted his makeup and everything for an Emmy or somesuch), then, plain and simple, ran out of budget and didn't get any more, so they basically had to sit a guy in a tree. Which goes to show that properly producing a show of this scale is impossibly hard and sometimes things don't go the way you want them to.
My main issue here is that people attribute things to incompetence when, in nearly all cases, the issue is not incompetence but a myriad of other, much more reasonable reasons.
|
On May 14 2015 02:20 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 01:44 karazax wrote:
If a character doesn't advance a book story line in any way then it's pretty hard to argue that they are necessary.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop here. You want a faithful adaption of the books. And, hell, I would really like one, too. But I know that it is utterly unrealistic to get one, so there's no point in wanting one. We won't get one. Ever. No amount of foot-stomping and complaining will change that. Instead, I'm trying to look at what we can reasonably get that will satisfy both book readers and non-book readers and HBO executives and promoters and just about everyone who has anything to do with the show. And that includes a whole lot of sacrifices for the book readers, just like it includes sacrifices for everyone else. It's a compromise. You don't want that compromise, you want a show that is the perfect representation of the books. All your arguments for how they should do X instead of Y is basically an argument to disregard anyone's needs but the book readers'. There's no point in arguing against that when you seem to disregard the very possibility of this trying to be more than a faithful adaption of the books (because if it were, it would never have gone into production in the first place).
Sure I WANT a perfect representation, but I don't expect it to be word for word with no changes as you seem to imply. I have acknowledged a number of times that some things have to be cut due to cast size, budget constraints, and screen time constraints. I may not like those changes, but I can accept them as necessary evils of the medium.
If an original scene contributes nothing to any of the book's plots, then why do you keep saying they are necessary as if it's fact? I'm not "ignoring non-readers" needs when I suggest removing these scenes, I am questioning what need they fill for readers and non-readers alike.
Including the scenes doesn't automatically ruin the show, but it could be even better by replacing them with something else. When they are compressing two long books into one season, the original scenes really need to add something important and I don't think many of these scenes do, for readers or non-readers.
Some things do have to be changed for non-readers. The blatant hints about R+L=J is a needed change for non-readers to have any chance of catching on to that possibility. The presumed cutting of the siege of Mereen is a defensible change as is the cutting of pretty much any battle from the books. It would cost a lot of money to portray the siege, they probably couldn't afford to do a battle justice, and it would require more screen time. Cutting Jon Connington and and that story line would add a significant amount of cast while splintering into another story line that won't be directly connected to any existing character's point of view. It would be great if they were able to figure out a way to do them like the book, but taking away something is a lot easier to justify than adding something.
The primary justifiable reasons for completely original scenes off the top of my head are:
1) To give an important actor/actress screen time when they have extended periods of not showing up in the books. I don't really care for the Tywin/Arya scenes because I don't think they fit Tywin's book character. He treated an insolent commoner servant better than his own children. I do understand why some sort of original scene for Tywin had to be created though because you can't convince Charles Dance to be on your cast and not show up except in book scenes. I also understand not casting Roose yet to keep the cast size down, so it was a logical change even if I wasn't always a fan of the writing for some parts of it. Really well acted though.
Likewise for Robb Stark needing more scenes than book Robb Stark. Or moving up Jaime's escape with Brienne so you aren't paying his actor to just sit in a cell for an entire season. These are valid reasons for adding those scenes even if some of the scenes could have been written in better ways.
2) They need to give information to non-readers that they otherwise wouldn't have. Littlefinger and Sansa talking about Rhaegar and Lyanna gives hints to R+L=J that is basically impossible for a non-reader to catch onto without coming across it in an online discussion. Samwell explaining what the Citadel is to Gilly is another example. Most original scenes focused on giving exposition fit here. They might be completely original scenes, but these still tend to fit something that the book character might reasonably say and tend to fill in information from the books that the non-reader needs to know.
3) Original characters can also serve a similar function. Locke replaced Vhargo Hoat because the writers didn't want to cast him earlier for casting size reasons, and they were not confident they could pull off a character with a prominent lisp and have him taken seriously. I would have preferred Hoat, but Locke does fill a book plot line, at least until he goes north of the wall to kill Bran.
4) The debatable reason that should be avoided if at all possible, is to fix holes that your other changes caused. When they delete huge chunks of story like Connington, the Greyjoys, Lady Stoneheart, Brienne's entire character arc, Arianna Martel, Quentyn Martel, Frey Pie, Selmy ruling Mereen, ect that that calls for original scenes to tie it all back together again. You can argue that is justification for Brienne's being in Winterfell, though it's debatable if it's any better than what a condensed version of her book arc would have been. Likewise they gave Jeyne's role to Sansa so they can keep the cast size down and give her a story line that overlaps with the Winterfell story line, even if it makes no sense and they will force it so that eventually she ends up where ever she ends up in the book as if her time at Winterfell with Ramsay and company never happened. You can justify why they felt a change needed to be made, but they often end up going poorly.
Ultimately I expect the show to try to be as close as possible given the restrictions of the media, budget, cast and time. That means keep characters consistent with their book counterparts unless you can give a damn good reason to change them. That doesn't mean they have to do all the exact same things they do in the books. It just means they should do what you would expect their book character would do in what ever situation you put them in. That means Littlefinger should be a master schemer, not a moron who lucks into good positions because chaos is a ladder. Jaime should be looking to redeem himself as worthy of filling pages in the White Book and moving on from Cersei, not still in love with her and trying win her back and worried about his children. Especially since he hasn't given a damn about them prior to this season. Brienne should be the stubborn, naive, model of chivalry that Sansa thinks all knights to be like in season one, not a brutal killer who is basically the female version of the Hound. What happens to them may need to change, but if the actual character of the person doesn't match up then they often end up trying to force these completely different people into book plot lines that often no longer make any sense in the changed context. Like the change of imprisoning Hizdahr, crucifying his father, threatening to feed him to the dragons and then informing him that he is getting married to Dany. If I was a non-reader that "compromise" certainly didn't make the wedding proposal make sense to me. Or Cersei doing anything to prevent the information about her relationship with Jaime from getting out in season one and then wanting to go public with it in season four...
Which is the core problem with D&D's worst original changes. They completely alter story lines and the core of who a character is, then force book events in where they often no longer fit. You can say I'm unreasonable to expect a character to behave like his book counterpart, but that is central to what making a good adaptation is to me. I don't expect every show event to match up scene for scene and line for line with the books, but I do expect the character to behave the way you would expect his book counterpart to in whatever new scene they create for him. Obviously they can tell a story and change a character completely and some people will still enjoy it. It doesn't mean the change was necessary. Did non-readers enjoy it because of the change or in spite of it?
|
On May 13 2015 22:56 Serejai wrote:
Two major things with the show that book readers always seem to conveniently ignore when complaining;
a) The books are told POV, so characters can be alone. You can't have a character alone in the show, otherwise they would just be talking to themselves like a crazy person. This is why we have Jaime and Bronn, Tyrion and Jorah, Brienne and Pod, etc.
b) Actors age. Bran is 7 years old when the books start, and 9 years old currently. Bran in the show has already aged twice that. You have to take a much faster pace with the show, otherwise you end up with a 20 year old actor trying to play a child. They already had to age up the characters for this very reason.
You can't just take a book and transfer it word-to-word into a media format, and I feel like they've done better than expected at converting the story so far.
No one is missing either of these points, and common criticisms of the show don't have anything to do with either of these points.
|
I actually don't mind scenes following an interesting character, having no dialogue, for a while. Would be a nice change of pace. But I suspect I'm not your average consumer of tv shows.
Arya/Cat of the canal would work alone. Having everyone else doing the talking, and she's just a quiet observer. Some good editing would do that nicely. But hey, to be realistic it's American tv. It's gotta be dumbed down for the allegedly dumb audience.
|
How would that work? If they do it your way Arya gets no noticeable character development (because she can't show it), the show wastes screentime on irrelevant events in Braavos and the story barely advances. Tell me where I'm wrong please
|
On May 14 2015 13:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 22:56 Serejai wrote:
Two major things with the show that book readers always seem to conveniently ignore when complaining;
a) The books are told POV, so characters can be alone. You can't have a character alone in the show, otherwise they would just be talking to themselves like a crazy person. This is why we have Jaime and Bronn, Tyrion and Jorah, Brienne and Pod, etc.
b) Actors age. Bran is 7 years old when the books start, and 9 years old currently. Bran in the show has already aged twice that. You have to take a much faster pace with the show, otherwise you end up with a 20 year old actor trying to play a child. They already had to age up the characters for this very reason.
You can't just take a book and transfer it word-to-word into a media format, and I feel like they've done better than expected at converting the story so far. No one is missing either of these points, and common criticisms of the show don't have anything to do with either of these points.
Lol. Pretty much every complaint in this circle-jerk of a thread is about why they cut X character, merged character X and Y, or why characters X and Y are traveling together in the show but are solo in the books. The overwhelming majority of you don't seem to understand how film works and instead think HBO is just out to piss you off for no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
