posted
<Facepalm> Dude . . . I could care less what they change or what they don't. I'm not obsessive enough about it to even notice what they changed. I read the books two years ago . . . how the heck am I supposed to remember all of this supposed subtext.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've even heard similar complaints directed at the show True Blood in relation to the novels upon which it is based.
I don't understand how a similar complaint (which has nothing at all to do with it being an adaptation) can be directed at a show in relation to the original.
Well, I suppose I just misunderstood your original post.
posted
My intention wasn't to put words in your mouth or anything of the like. I was just expanding upon your original comment. Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Ah, that. I initially thought that that was what you meant, but since you specified "non-human accent", and since Lando's accent strikes my ear as being distinctly Slavic, I thought that you must have meant Delenn (whose accent truly doesn't have an earth analog, that I'm aware of).
The ironic thing is that, as others have noted, the actress who played Delenn is actually Slavic and used her natural accent, while the actor who played Londo is American and used an invented one.
Of course, I have to admit that I don't know what Croatian sounds like. It probably sounds considerably different from, say, Russian, which is probably what most people think of when they think of Slavic.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The show really requires you divorce it from the books to enjoy it. For the first half of the first season, I was constantly comparing it to my experience with the books (which I was so deeply enthralled with that I walked around in a daze for the first week or so after reading GoT), and was deeply disappointed. After that, I simply tried my hardest to forget my memory of the books and watch it as if it was an original production, and I found I actually really enjoyed the show, especially the second time around. *shrugs*
I do agree that the gratuitous sex scenes are annoying though - I don't mind the ones that progress the story, but a lot the time the story stops cold to make room for for the sex scenes. And so far, they've been really terrible. If I just wanted to watch people having sex, there's a lot of great porn that does a much better job.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that note, I watched a few episodes of the television program based on Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files, and it was totally awful. So, I had to totally obliterate any specific memory of the series to protect my emotional investment in the book series. So, that street can go both ways.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A change I like: Tywin Lannister sitting at Harrenhal. Sure, the castle was in flux, but at this point in the books, the Brave Companions were pretty much running the joint, but Tywin (and no leeching...) works. (For me.) (In my opinion.)
I generally watch each episode twice: once to get all of the annoying 'What the...' moments out and once with a group of friends. Many of these friends have read the books, though some have not; all, however, have played the board game. We sometimes have to pause to think whether certain scenes were in the book or whether certain characters really would keep talking in a conversation with the Queen Regent when he clearly had the advantage without actually saying what he was quite clearly implying... Um. Right.
I'm not convinced the writers have "radically destroyed" or "distorted" most of the characters. The characters are certainly more transparent than when we're inside their heads on the written page, and sure, some scenes read very, very differently on the page than on screen. With ten-episode seasons, though, perhaps the writers found that skipping subtext allowed the plot to actually move. I don't know. I wasn't in the writers' room. For me, the essentials of each character are there - and the ones who seem different suffer from being developed at all at this point in the series. Of Dan's list of changed characterizations ("Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei"), several hadn't even been developed beyond a couple lines in the books. For two examples, Loras doesn't get interesting - or, quite frankly, relevant - until he gets to King's Landing, and it's only when Joffrey starts having Sansa beaten that Sandor becomes a human character instead of a random sword-wielding hound. Indeed, I contend that one of the most changed characters doesn't even fall on Dan's list (though Jake did mention it): Stannis, and it comes down to one scene. There was always an implied sexual relationship between Stannis and Melisandre, but a) I didn't need to see it on the map table, of all things, and b) it was never about bearing sons, because Stannis already had a child. And a fool.
This brings me to the sex, to which I say, "Meh." It's Game of Thrones and HBO. Neither entity on its own is exactly a paragon of sexual virtue, and combining the two provided exactly what I expected: boobs and violence against people who have them. They're tiresome, but honestly - I'd rather they be included than a bunch of minor characters be woefully underintroduced for the minute and a half (tops) it takes to get through one such scene. I'm also quite glad there's consistency with the hookers; it's difficult to keep all the ladies straight in the books.
Anyhow, divorcing the show from the books seems to be how most fans handle the differences. It's still a quite good show; as an adaptation, it's among my favorites. And it's certainly not one that angers me (I have issues with "The Walking Dead", mostly because of Shane [and essentially every woman on the show]; the only movie that truly and legitimately angers me is "Troy").
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: A change I like: Tywin Lannister sitting at Harrenhal. Sure, the castle was in flux, but at this point in the books, the Brave Companions were pretty much running the joint, but Tywin (and no leeching...) works. (For me.) (In my opinion.)
Tywin was at Harrenhal. The change is that when Arya's time intersected with his she was still working with Weese, and didn't become cupbearer till she and Jaquen displaced Lorch and the other Lannister men Tywin leaves behind. Then Bolton arrives, and she becomes cupbearer. So this isn't a change so much as a time squashing. (Disclaimer: haven't actually seen this episode yet, I'm I think 2 behind schedule)
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: I'm not convinced the writers have "radically destroyed" or "distorted" most of the characters. The characters are certainly more transparent than when we're inside their heads on the written page, and sure, some scenes read very, very differently on the page than on screen. With ten-episode seasons, though, perhaps the writers found that skipping subtext allowed the plot to actually move. I don't know. I wasn't in the writers' room. For me, the essentials of each character are there - and the ones who seem different suffer from being developed at all at this point in the series. Of Dan's list of changed characterizations ("Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei"), several hadn't even been developed beyond a couple lines in the books. For two examples, Loras doesn't get interesting - or, quite frankly, relevant - until he gets to King's Landing, and it's only when Joffrey starts having Sansa beaten that Sandor becomes a human character instead of a random sword-wielding hound. Indeed, I contend that one of the most changed characters doesn't even fall on Dan's list (though Jake did mention it): Stannis, and it comes down to one scene. There was always an implied sexual relationship between Stannis and Melisandre, but a) I didn't need to see it on the map table, of all things, and b) it was never about bearing sons, because Stannis already had a child. And a fool.
I agree that I left out Stannis and Selyse. Really, I left out more than them, too, I just let my list fade because I felt I'd made my point
To some of your other comments though... yeah, I disagree. On the Hound, he absolutely had characterization in the first book.
One of his best scenes wasn't even cut from the show, they just inexplicably gave all of his lines to Petyr. So instead of having a tense one-on-one moment with Sansa where he tells her how he got his scar, Petyr tells Sansa (and Jeyne & their Septa)... about an event that only Sandor & Gregor were present for. So not only is Sandor robbed of a great scene, but the change makes no damn sense at all.
Similarly, they've glossed over plenty more in the first few episodes. It's not that surprising; most of Sandor's best stuff in early Clash is very subtle, and the show doesn't do subtle. Ever, as far as I can tell.
To some of my other characters...
Loras is unbelievably whiny in the show, so yeah, he hadn't been developed much in the books by this point, but the development the show has done has been... bizarre, and incongruous with his character as it appears later.
Renly has been turned into a wimp and a courtier. I guess to play up the gay angle and hit those stereotypes? I dunno, but he's also totally distorted.
Petyr hasn't changed so much, but his portrayal has. He wasn't nearly so overtly pure evil this early. His motives were unclear, and he seemed mostly seemed more opportunistic than Machiavellian until late in Storm.
On the flip side, at this point in the books Cersei was less sympathetic than the show seems to be trying to make her.
Robb spent the beginning of the last episode I saw justifying his war in a nonsensical scene with a random battlefield healer. I don't even know what to say about that scene, or what it says about the show's version of Robb.
Drogo was made less sympathetic, what with his blatantly raping Dany at their wedding instead of the much more interesting "no, no, no, yes" scene.
And similarly, Dany had a lot less growth in the first season, for similar reasons.
I'm not sure I will ever really forgive the writers for ruining the scene where Jon finds Ghost. Having Theon dismissively "assign" Ghost to Jon because it was the runt completely robbed Jon of one of his best moments in the first book, when he takes active responsibility for Ghost and basically tells Theon to go screw himself. The scene was inverted, for no good reason that I can see.
Most of these are relatively trivial, though. Sandor's crappy treatment hurts the most of them, him being one of my favorite characters.
But even worse is Tyrion. In a move that really solidly illustrates the fact that the writers fundamentally don't know what they're doing, they horrifically distorted Tyrion in a recent episode.
When did they do this? When they got rid of Jacelyn Bywater and folded his role into Bronn. At first glance this seems okay... Bywater had few lines and wasn't a major character.
The problem is, it profoundly changes the events.
In the book, Tyrion removes from office a corrupt, evil toady in Joffrey's (or Cersei's or maybe Petyr's) pocket and replaces him with a hard-nosed, basically honorable man. This is him living up to his promise to "do justice."
Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work.
In the show, he removes from office a corrupt, evil toady in Joffrey's pocket and replaces him with... a corrupt, evil toady in Tyrion's pocket. Bronn's amusing line now serves to underscore in no uncertain terms that Tyrion is just as bad as the other people at court.
It's a seemingly trivial change... remove a minor character... that, if you pay attention, has huge implications for his character. It's a massive, massive distortion of his character.
Frankly, I expect more of these. The writers fiddle with the story with impunity, and I don't think they have a very good idea of the consequences of that fiddling.
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: They're tiresome, but honestly - I'd rather they be included than a bunch of minor characters be woefully underintroduced for the minute and a half (tops) it takes to get through one such scene. I'm also quite glad there's consistency with the hookers; it's difficult to keep all the ladies straight in the books.
Huh. Really? I always hear people complain that the books have too many characters to keep straight, but I've never really experienced that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work."
I think you're imagining stuff, treating everything in the books in the most charitable way possible, and treating everything in the series in the least charitable way possible.
Tyrion's look in the series after the scene where he asks Bronn, very clearly shows that it's not the attitude that he'd have *wished* of someone in his employ. That alone distinguishes him from people like Joffrey.
Tyrion in the books on the other hand uses Bronn to murder a musician (who was just doing some relatively innocent -for the standards of the world- blackmailing) and makes his body into soup.
Drogo was indeed made to *seem* less sympathetic in the series. In the books he doesn't rape Dany, but he still leads his horde to rape all those other women, and he still vouches to rape all those women of Westeros.
So, yeah, he's more sympathetic in the books in that he isn't raping the *protagonist*, he's just raping everyone *else* -- that's the sort of thing that is a moral deficiency of the books themselves, as they make a character look nicer just because he's being nice to a POV character, as opposed to all those other insignificant NPCs he's butchering and raping -- yay how sympathetic...
Renly and Sandor are worse in the series, but Loras is better. You mention Loras' whining in the series, but that's all I remember of Loras in the books: Loras whining that he wasn't allowed to chase after the Mountain and Loras whining about wanting to kill Brienne of Tarth -- in the series we instead see Loras conspiring to make Renly a king, and we also see him be intelligent enough to *figure out*, even in his grief, that it must have been Stannis, not Brienne that did it.
In short: Some characters are better in the books, but some characters are better in the series.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work."
I think you're imagining stuff, treating everything in the books in the most charitable way possible, and treating everything in the series in the least charitable way possible.
Tyrion's look in the series after the scene where he asks Bronn, very clearly shows that it's not the attitude that he'd have *wished* of someone in his employ. That alone distinguishes him from people like Joffrey.
Tyrion in the books on the other hand uses Bronn to murder a musician (who was just doing some relatively innocent -for the standards of the world- blackmailing) and makes his body into soup.
The distinction being that Tyrion frequently makes immoral choices on a micro level, but does his best to make the right choices on a macro level, to create a better city/realm for the masses.
I actually think this is sort of the opposite of what you're implying... it makes him a deeply flawed person who we clearly see murder people and commit heinous acts. But we also see, on a broad scale, the good decisions he makes and the ways he tries to rein in Joffrey's worse abuses.
Except in the series, where he doesn't.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Drogo was indeed made to *seem* less sympathetic in the series. In the books he doesn't rape Dany, but he still leads his horde to rape all those other women, and he still vouches to rape all those women of Westeros.
So, yeah, he's more sympathetic in the books in that he isn't raping the *protagonist*, he's just raping everyone *else* -- that's the sort of thing that is a moral deficiency of the books themselves, as they make a character look nicer just because he's being nice to a POV character, as opposed to all those other insignificant NPCs he's butchering and raping -- yay how sympathetic...
Heh, okay, I'll give you Drogo. He was pretty bad. I mostly cared about that scene being lost because of the implications for Dany, not Drogo.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Renly and Sandor are worse in the series, but Loras is better. You mention Loras' whining in the series, but that's all I remember of Loras in the books: Loras whining that he wasn't allowed to chase after the Mountain and Loras whining about wanting to kill Brienne of Tarth -- in the series we instead see Loras conspiring to make Renly a king, and we also see him be intelligent enough to *figure out*, even in his grief, that it must have been Stannis, not Brienne that did it.
In short: Some characters are better in the books, but some characters are better in the series.
I haven't seen the episode where Renly dies (I saw the first 20 minutes of an episode that might be that one; the one with the very superfluous and unnecessary Joffrey/Whores scene. I turned it off after that.)
Loras has seemed constantly irritated and whiny in demeanor so far, though. Loras in the books was privately a bit whiny, I suppose, but also pretty good at the whole gallant chivalry shtick, which he doesn't do at all on the show.
I'm curious, aside from Loras, who else do you think is actually better in the show?
Edited to fix a typo. Thanks Aris, for preemptively fixing it in your quote. That was rad of you.
quote:I'm curious, aside from Loras, who else do you think is actually better in the show?
Catelyn is slightly better - though all her tactical decisions are still horrid, as in the books, she atleast gets right the big strategic one that could have averted it all (Don't Go South). That's a plus.
Osha is also better I think; she was very forgettable in the books, to me atleast, but all her attitude in the series and light jabbing (mocking towards Theon, affectionate towards Bran) has made her a good character in the series.
Joffrey is slightly better too -- he was just a sadist kid in the books, and of course he largely still is, but the series has added elements where he moves and thinks independently of his mother (e.g. the baby-massacre has been assigned to him in the series, instead of the Queen -- and he has a scene where he frightens even Cersei herself).
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting observations. I'm not sure if I agree, but I don't immediately disagree, either, so there's that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?
posted
They've been out since the 90s, and you're watching a show about them, and reading a thread where people who have read them discuss that show. I think there's a statute of limitations on this sort of thing. (Warning: Language.)
Also, more importantly...
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I havent read the books.
Why the heck not!?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I have them, I have this issue where I keep putting off things that I know are good for me.
IP: Logged |
posted
... Isn't that just another way of saying it will wrinkle his brain?
(Warning: Community season 2 spoiler at the end of the video)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I just have a lot going on, I'll get to them eventually, I just finished reading Halo: Glasslands which was awesome and Karen Traviss is now my new favorite scifi author that's still writing military scifi stuff. So I need a moment to recover.
IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I wasn't even going to go there, Steve. Though I certainly considered it.
Many of us have read and loved crappy books in our lives, sometimes even concurrent with reading and loving good books. It happens.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south
I meant that in the series she asks Ned not to go to King's Landing. In the books she likes and supports the idea of Ned going to King's Landing instead.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?
In hindsight it occurs to me: What the heck are you talking about?
How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?
Im going by the comments in the thread, since I like the current portrayels, thus the books must be worse.
IP: Logged |
quote:Joffrey is slightly better too -- he was just a sadist kid in the books, and of course he largely still is, but the series has added elements where he moves and thinks independently of his mother
I agree that Joffrey is a stronger character in the show, but I think they do that at the expense of making Cersei a weaker character. Since Joffrey isn't under her control, she is far less powerful and less interesting.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?
In hindsight it occurs to me: What the heck are you talking about?
How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?
Im going by the comments in the thread, since I like the current portrayels, thus the books must be worse.
I don't follow this logic. You're saying the books must be worse than the show based on comments which are the opinion of other people?
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're talking to the same person who, when I mentioned a show he wasn't familiar, said "let me check tvtropes and see if I like it." I'm not sure if logic applies here.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've always thought it weird that Americans expect British or pseudo-British accents for roles like that.
Did it bother you that Charles Winchester in M.A.S.H had a British accent even though he was from Boston? It never bothered me, many Americans view a British accent as bringing as sort of credibility to aristocrat or intellectual figures.
I always assumed that the accent was an affectation on Winchester's part.
Nope! Chahles Winchstah the Thuhd was a Boston Brahmin -- absolutely faithful. It's a very weird accent, and increasingly rare. I think it sort of percolated up to the very rich from the original British accents in the area. Here's a sample of the accent.Posts: 1 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
What timely thread necromancy! ElJay and I just finished watching S1 -- rewatching for me. We still haven't seen S2, and won't until the Blu-rays come out (so... like... next summer? Thanks, HBO! Keep clinging to that antiquated business model!), but I'm really looking forward to it. We've both read the first book, but it was quite a long time ago. I stopped reading the series after that, but she's read the first three or four. I'm very curious to see how not having read the second book changes my experience of watching the show.
Based on how much I enjoyed S1, and on how much more I enjoyed watching S1 than reading book 1, I suspect that watching S2 without a clue about what will happen will be even more enjoyable than watching S1 was. If that turns out to be true, I probably won't ever return to the books -- or, if I do, it'll be after the series is done.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've always thought it weird that Americans expect British or pseudo-British accents for roles like that.
Did it bother you that Charles Winchester in M.A.S.H had a British accent even though he was from Boston? It never bothered me, many Americans view a British accent as bringing as sort of credibility to aristocrat or intellectual figures.
I always assumed that the accent was an affectation on Winchester's part.
Nope! Chahles Winchstah the Thuhd was a Boston Brahmin -- absolutely faithful. It's a very weird accent, and increasingly rare. I think it sort of percolated up to the very rich from the original British accents in the area. Here's a sample of the accent.
That's right! It's coming back to me now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: What timely thread necromancy! ElJay and I just finished watching S1 -- rewatching for me. We still haven't seen S2, and won't until the Blu-rays come out (so... like... next summer? Thanks, HBO! Keep clinging to that antiquated business model!), but I'm really looking forward to it. We've both read the first book, but it was quite a long time ago. I stopped reading the series after that, but she's read the first three or four. I'm very curious to see how not having read the second book changes my experience of watching the show.
Based on how much I enjoyed S1, and on how much more I enjoyed watching S1 than reading book 1, I suspect that watching S2 without a clue about what will happen will be even more enjoyable than watching S1 was. If that turns out to be true, I probably won't ever return to the books -- or, if I do, it'll be after the series is done.
posted
That I don't enjoy that thing you enjoyed as much as you enjoyed it? It would be a pretty boring world if everyone enjoyed everything the same amount!
I think I'd like the first book more if I read it now, since my taste has changed somewhat, but even so -- for me, the prologue and final chapter of the first book were captivating, but the great wide inbetween was considerably less so. And the final chapter was one of the more predictable plot elements. I'm a lot more open to stories with many characters than I was back then -- heck, I'm on the ninth book of The Malazan Book of the Fallen -- but the show is just so damned good that I think I'm going to absolutely love watching it without foreknowledge.
But these days, if I had to pick a favourite fantasy writer, I'd actually pick the other author I complained about in that thread, R. Scott Bakker.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, whether or not that's true, that doesn't mean it would be a boring world if everyone enjoyed the really good things roughly the same amount.
But no, it's not really tragic for me when people don't like the novels, per se. What's tragic is when people don't like the novels but like the show. I just... I haven't yet seen an explanation for that that makes sense.
As far as I can tell, pretty much all of the flaws of the books exist on the show, plus lots lots more, minus lots of the best stuff.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why that's tragic. I think the show is great relative to most other television, and doubly so because it's so wonderful to finally see fantasy done well on television.
When I want fantasy done well in book form, I have plenty of other options -- even limiting it to authors I already know I like.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's pacing. I'm not really sure Martin has a handle on it. But the show moves quickly.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I think it's pacing. I'm not really sure Martin has a handle on it. But the show moves quickly.
I think your first and last sentence make sense, but I'm having a hard time understanding the middle one.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I think it's pacing. I'm not really sure Martin has a handle on it. But the show moves quickly.
I think your first and last sentence make sense, but I'm having a hard time understanding the middle one.
I'm not sure that (George RR) Martin has a handle on it (referring to pacing, in the books).
Some people dig slow burn intrigue in their books. I do when it's handled well (early Robert Jordan, Sanderson, etc). But the pacing in the show is much faster (read, it's a show). I even thought the incredibly slow Jonathan Strange book was a more gripping read. Then again, it was the second ASOFAI book that lost me. The first was okay.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I havent read the books.
