posted
Episode 8 just came out, episode 9 is right around the corner. Just a few weeks left til the end of season 2 of Game of Thrones. Are you guys sad or excited?
I really wish it was longer, but I guess there's only so much material to draw from. I'm reading the books right now, very slowly because I want to make them last until the next season starts up next year.
I'm really impressed that HBO is finding so much success with this show. It's quite expensive and it does everything perfectly (in my opinion). It kinda gives me hope that they risk more and go with other shows like Stephen King's the Dark Tower series, which has been tossed around, apparently.
Also, who else loves Tyrion? That dude is awesome.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely heard the topic in her voice, Jyeon Sneeuuugh. It has become a joke between a few of my friends to end every sentence this way regardless of context, Jyeon Sneeuuugh.
Excited more than sad. I don't have HBO so I have to *coughstreamitonlinecough*. I look forward to it every week. I JUST started reading the series. Literally bought GoT six days ago. Typically I prefer to read a book before viewing the adaptation, but in this case I'm thoroughly enjoying Peter Dinklage's delivery in my head... among others.
The costumes and sets and scope of the production are wonderful. In a way I think it's getting me amped up for The Hobbit. Even though details and characters change, I'm glad to see an adaptation that is pretty darn true to the original (as far as I can tell so far) and well-made. Also glad that I'll potentially have a couple of books to read between seasons.
Tyrion makes me giddy.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I am enjoying the John Snow POV more than anything, because I had a hard time following him in the books. Some of the connections make a lot more sense now. For some reason my mind kept drifting during his tale.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan, I'm curious what connections didn't make sense before, but do now that you've watched the show.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without giving any spoilers, I am just curious if the permanent loss of limbs or scarring from the books will make the transition for some of our characters.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Without giving any spoilers, I am just curious if the permanent loss of limbs or scarring from the books will make the transition for some of our characters.
They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was suprised that two child characters in the book have not shown up in the series yet, especially since they are fairly important in helping another child character learn more about him/herself.
How's that for a spoiler free statement!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I was suprised that two child characters in the book have not shown up in the series yet, especially since they are fairly important in helping another child character learn more about him/herself.
How's that for a spoiler free statement!
Current rumors have it that a significantly older character will take the place of the missing child characters.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm reading the books right now, very slowly because I want to make them last until the next season starts up next year.
Read very slowly. There are still two books in the series that haven't been written yet. It was 5 and 1/2 years between the publication of 4 and 5. When book 4 was published, Martin said the next book would be out in a year. At this rate, the show will have to completely divert from the books if they hit 7 seasons, because the books won't be written in time to use.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd heard about that, dandy. I don't know what they expect to do if that happens. Hopefully he stops doing so many side projects (like writing scripts for the show) and focuses on his books. I'd hate for him to die before they're done. This is seriously some of the best fantasy literature I think I've ever read (note: I haven't read a lot of fantasy).
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was chuckling at the idea that limiting factor for the show's length is the length of the source material.
They've cut out huge amounts of content from the books. Not only that, they've added content and changed a lot, so faithfulness to source material does not seem terribly high on their list of priorities.
The limiting factor on the show's length is almost certainly contractual/budgetary, and nothing else.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, Aros, I know you've got hopelessly bad taste. That's okay. Everyone's got flaws. I'm sure you have something going for you, like a good sense of humor or a lot of money or something. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, certain things change when you convert to film or TV. That's just how it goes. So far, though, from what I've managed to read, they've done a very decent job at it. The characters seem like they are straight out of the book.
I really hope this show lasts a while. As big as the books seem to get (how long was the last one? 1500 pages?), you'd think they could make it go about 10 seasons. Well, that's if he finishes them, of course.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff: To be clear, I was looking forward to the show, and I absolutely agree that due to changes in medium, some thing are going to change. There have been some of these, that I don't object to at all.
There have also been a lot of changes/cuts/additions that have nothing to do with preserving the story in the new medium, though. All of these have been terrible.
Aros provides a nice demonstration of the proof of what I'm saying. A show that accurately preserved the story in the book wherever possible should not appeal to someone who loathed the book, right? And yet it does.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Where?! I've just finished Clash of Kings and the series is very much like the novels. There is no significant difference. I like the way they shorten things sometimes, it's really well prepared- like the prostitute Cersei takes. There's one thing though- Jon Snow and his mission - but maybe there'll be more in the next episode... Although so far they made him a traitorous traitor and a douche looooooser in the show.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, just out of curiosity, what kind of things did they change for the worse? I'm interested to know, because nothing stood out as downright bad to me, but that's coming from someone who hasn't read much of the books. I'm only on about chapter 9 of the first book so far
Try to keep the details out if you can. Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I can do it without details, but I'll try.
Um, the Hound's character is completely eviscerated out of the show. His most interesting scene in the first book (the reading of which is what got Rory McCann the part) is taken from him and given to Petyr Baelish in a completely nonsensical throwaway scene.
They remove a minor seemingly irrelevant character in the 2nd book and fold his role into Bronn. I know why they did it. But this has the unforeseen consequence of deeply and fundamentally changing the scene it happens in, and paints Tyrion as a much more hypocritical and heartless person than he is in the books.
There are more that I can't figure out how to vague up enough, but I can think of two very small ones from the very first episode of Season 1 that I will detail in full (spoiler alert for early chapters of GoT & episode 1 season 1):
Instead of Gared being the survivor from the prologue, they have Will be the survivor. So what, right?
Well, in the book, the fact that Gared was executed as a deserter is noteworthy to Mormont, because Gared was a seasoned ranger who'd been on the wall as long as Mormont himself. Will, by contrast, was a relatively green ranger, so deserting is much more understandable, and easy to hand-wave away as the result of a wildling attack.
The second change is when Jon finds the direwolves. In the book, when he finds Ghost, Theon says they ought to simply kill him, as he's an albino and likely won't survive. Jon coldly replies that Theon is wrong, because Ghost is his.
Jon asserts himself. Jon takes responsibility. Jon doesn't take shit, even from people he perhaps ought to. Jon is his father's son.
In the show, when Jon finds Ghost, Theon says, in essence, "Hah, it's the runt, that one's yours Snow!" It's a put-down. And Jon just sort of stands there and takes it with a dopey look on his face.
Are either of these big changes in isolation? No! But they have consequences, albeit small ones, and there is no reason for them. The book -> film medium change is not the reason. The writers just felt like changing things. It's indicative of the attitude the show's writers take towards the material. And there are countless more like them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm...I'll keep those in mind as I read. I already ran into the Direwolf one. I thought it was strange, too.
According to the guys behind the show, we're probably going to see more big changes like the ones you mentioned. They're apparently wanting to adapt the entire series as a whole, rather than just each individual book. It makes sense, to some degree, because certain characters supposedly don't get adequate time in the books (like Dany), but the show has to adjust because the audience expects these characters to have screen time. Hopefully that doesn't ruin it, but so far I'm still enjoying it more than anything else on television right now.
posted
Yeah I've heard about some of their... "adaptations" to Dany's scenes in season 2.
Sigh.
Well, in any event, I'm glad you're enjoying it! I wish the show all the best. Really. I just wish they didn't fall prey to the common trap that plagues adapters: "Why don't I just improve on the source material a leeeeeetle bit!"
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sort of what's happening with Ender's Game if you think about it. OSC has said that this isn't his movie, it's Gavin Hood's. I'm a little scared of that, but I guess it's true of any adaptation, really.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's just one of those things you have to be willing to let go of. For hardcore fans of any series it's the little things changes that people inevitably find most annoying, even if those changes make little difference to the story. Changing names "the others" vs. "white walkers" among others etc. There seem to be little reason for the changes so they rub people wrong more than the big stuff that obviously has something to do with the fact that it's a television adaptation. (The theory behind changing the others to the white walkers is that people might associate "the others" with Lost btw).
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm happy they are doing new stuff with the material in the show. If it was exactly like the books I wouldn't bother to watch it, because I've already read the books.
Posts: 212 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
Exactly. At that point in the first episode, they were trying to convey the information that Jon was a bastard.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: They're veeing far enough from the novels at this point that I'd say that anything's possible. I *expect*, though, that what you're referring to here will still happen.
Where?! I've just finished Clash of Kings and the series is very much like the novels. There is no significant difference.
That's interesting; I think that we must be keying in on different things as signicant.
Without making any kind of a judgment about the changes one way or the other:
Off the top of my head, I'd say that the most significant differences include the stolen dragons storyline, the Arya as Tywin's cupbearer subplot, the way that Arya's escape was handled, and the elimination of Reek as a character.
Other differences that represent a fairly stark (heh) departure from the books, but which may not amount to much in the way the story unfolds include the fact that Littlefinger knows Arya's identity and location (well, recent location, anyway), the gentling of Tywin and Cersei's characters, the elimination of the Reed children, the Wildling's capture of John and Qhorin Halfhand, Drogo's killing Mago back in season 1, the apparent elimination of Tyrion's chain, Stannis making Davos the commander of his warfleet, the fact that the Faceless Man doesn't retire his Jaqen H'ghar persona and shift faces, the fact that he doesn't give Arya the iron coin, and the substitution of a Rhoynish noblewoman for Jeyne Westerling.
Fairly subtle changes that are unlikely to have a lot of impact on the story, but which do change the warp and weft of the world include things like making the First Men worshippers of The Seven,changing Stannis' motivation for engaging in sexytimes with Melissandre, and getting rid of Shireen and Edric Stormborn.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Btw, Jake, now that I think about it, I think the (book) series was first recommended to me on here by you, many moons ago. I don't know if I ever said thanks. Thanks!
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Were you one of those guys who got mad there were elves at the final battle in The Two Towers?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
The issue with Tyrion isn't about showing his "kindness" through some specific number of nice actions or something.
I don't want to spoil, but the change substantively changes his character in a subtle but important way. It's not that they missed an opportunity to show a facet of him they can show some other time. That facet was contradicted by the event as it happens in the show. There's not really much going back from that, unless they add a scene where he realizes he's made a terrible mistake or something.
I think the subtlety may have been lost on many viewers. To use an obvious example:
If Tyrion, instead of trying to send Tommen away from Cersei, had him tortured to death in the throne room... that would be a substantial change, right? Not one that you can fix by creating some other scene where he is nice to Myrcella, right? That wouldn't be a problem of "shorthand."
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I bet you're annoyed that there's no Jane Westerling?
I'm behind quite a few episodes now, so I haven't seen this yet, but if he's romancing the weird anachronistic lady who went on the anti-war rant, my only annoyance will likely stem from the fact that I wasn't too fond of that character. Changing Jeyne Westerling's character doesn't specifically bother me (though it may, if she becomes more relevant. So, changing her for no good reason seems dumb.)
Anyway, they've given Robb lots more screen time, so having a more detailed, nuanced relationship for him is not specifically objectionable. Changing mediums! I keep separate my "Ugh this isn't precisely like the book!" reflexive responses and my "This is actively worse than the book!" criticisms.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: "It isn't like the book" is not a real criticism.
That's true.
"It's worse than the book" is. Or, really, "It's worse than the book for X, Y, and Z reasons."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dan, they've displayed Tyrion's kindness and Jon's assertiveness in other ways.
They've got to shorthand some things.
Exactly. At that point in the first episode, they were trying to convey the information that Jon was a bastard.
And that Theon is a douche, presumably. I don't think Theon's comment to Jon demonstrates it any better than Jon's words to Ned did. And the scene in that same episode between Tyrion and Jon does an even better job, for those in the audience who missed it earlier.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Jane Westerling is an obvious example of what I'm talking about. The TV series has to shorthand sometimes; the writers might have just decided they could not convincing portray Robb deciding to marry someone from the family of a Lannister bannerman.
Tyrian's ability to do justice was portrayed in his defense of Sansa.
Bronn needs something to do. Tyrian needs to spend time with the head of the goldcloaks. Problem solved.
It's just the practical difficulties of adaptation. Like how in the riot scene, the royal party is walking through the streets of King's Landing, rather than riding horses. That makes no sense in terms of their royal position - why is the King walking and not riding? - Until you realize that filming horses in a crowd would be prohibitively dangerous and expensive.
Yeah, I hated what Peter Jackson did to Faramir too, but I got over it. Adaptations are different beasts.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people who've read the books seem to underestimate how hard it is for those who haven't read them to follow the story and the vast number of characters. On screen you have to hammer things home for people to pick them up. There's no going back and re-reading to remind yourself what happened or who's who.
Given the very short seasons, they really couldn't have done much better. The only thing I lament is the way they've ignored the Hound's relationship with Sansa.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So I haven't watched the show past the first four or five episodes, but now I'm really glad I haven't. I don't hold anything against it - a lot of my friends are into it (that haven't read the book) and I've generally heard it proclaimed as one of the best shows on television. But seeing all of those "minor details" changed would drive me up the wall and lead to endless rantings.
Were you one of those guys who got mad there were elves at the final battle in The Two Towers?
Ooohhh don't get me started.
Seriously though, I have a well-rehearsed and often used rant on that very thing, if you're interested.
ETA: Just to be clear, with AGoT, I'm not necessarily critical of the show. I haven't seen enough of it, and like I said, judging from the reactions I overwhelmingly hear, they are doing something, or a lot of things, right. I personally would have a hard time not being annoyed at changes, but that doesn't affect the quality of the show. That's just my personal opinion. With The Two Towers it's another issue, but yeah.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: But Jane Westerling is an obvious example of what I'm talking about. The TV series has to shorthand sometimes; the writers might have just decided they could not convincing portray Robb deciding to marry someone from the family of a Lannister bannerman.
Interesting. That didn't even occur to me as a possible reason. I doubt most casual viewers would think of that as a major issue either.
I think it's more likely they wanted to start the romance before he was that deep in Lannister territory (and wanted a chance to have someone rail against war in general).
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Tyrian's ability to do justice was portrayed in his defense of Sansa.
Bronn needs something to do. Tyrian needs to spend time with the head of the goldcloaks. Problem solved.
I understand that.
As I said before, I understood their reasons. I almost always understand their reasons, so explaining them isn't much of a refutation of my criticism. I disagree with their reasons.
Warning, spoilers for early episodes in Season 2 ahead.
The change to Tyrion in that scene is bad and it's huge. Subtle, but huge. It's not something that is washed out by him defending a young girl later in the show. He is now the kind of person who would put an immoral, wholly corrupt murderer in charge of the city's police force, because that murderer is (currently) loyal to him.
To say that they "showed he can do justice" elsewhere doesn't change what their rewrite of that scene showed. Do you understand what I mean?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: It's just the practical difficulties of adaptation. Like how in the riot scene, the royal party is walking through the streets of King's Landing, rather than riding horses. That makes no sense in terms of their royal position - why is the King walking and not riding? - Until you realize that filming horses in a crowd would be prohibitively dangerous and expensive.
Yeah, and this is an example that, while it would make me groan and whine "that's not how it was in the books!" it's not actually substantially worse.
There are two very different kinds of criticisms here.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Yeah, I hated what Peter Jackson did to Faramir too, but I got over it. Adaptations are different beasts.
Right. So, that's a great example!
I think that adding the elves to Helm's Deep is sort of an example of a change like removing the horses from the riot. It doesn't really make sense if you're a fan and you understand what's going on, but it's also not a big deal at the end of the day.
The changes to Faramir are an example of the adaptation deeply changing a character for the worse.
The adaptation did this with Aragorn, too, but that's an example where my somewhat low opinion of Tolkien as an author shines through: I think that the changes to Aragorn's character make him more interesting. I think they improved him. I know others, like Lyr, probably deeply disagree with me.
The GoT show makes Faramir level changes almost every episode.
And if you're like Aros, and you think that these huge changes are an improvement over a terrible story, that's fine.
Or, if you think the huge changes are value neutral and keep the story of the same caliber, that's fine too.
But don't tell me they aren't substantial, unnecessary changes. That's an indefensible position.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Some people who've read the books seem to underestimate how hard it is for those who haven't read them to follow the story and the vast number of characters. On screen you have to hammer things home for people to pick them up. There's no going back and re-reading to remind yourself what happened or who's who.
If that was true, why do they add new plotlines, new characters, and new sex scenes?
Do you really think there's no element of trying to "improve" the story, as opposed to just translate it?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Given the very short seasons, they really couldn't have done much better. The only thing I lament is the way they've ignored the Hound's relationship with Sansa.
Yeah the treatment the Hound has gotten is pretty much the reason I stopped watching.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find him to be a really fascinating and awesome character.
Almost certainly my favorite of the non-POV characters.
Edit: It occurs to me that this is still pretty vague. I'm not sure how much detail you're looking for, or if you have some reason you don't like him or assumed I wouldn't ... eh, I'll just wait to see if you have a follow-up question.
posted
I just don't see any point to the character, either in the movies or the books. He's one of the more colorful side characters, sure, but I don't understand the fan appeal. It's like all the fan love for Boba Fett, which I never understood, either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: From what I've been hearing about Season 2 they've abandoned any pretense of trying to stick to the book-minus-necessary-cuts.
Radically changed things, added scenes, etc. Sigh.
This isn't true. The condensed Arya's and Dany's storys and added a handful of Cersei and other character POV scenes. Just like in first season.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
