I disagree wholeheartedly with every point, and now think you have absolutely no imagination and possibly have never read a book before.
have a nice day
have a nice day
6 Ways Game of Thrones Surpasses Its Source Material
- Thread starter Zacharious-khan
- Start date
Yeah I dunno....
I've never been one to complain about the show. ASoIF became my favorite series well before it came up for an HBO adaption I had never been more hyped. Even if it has some shortcomings, seeing the series I've come to know & love get it's proper respect on screen I can't help but love every minute of it. But it still doesn't change the fact that the books are vastly superior, and GRRM is a far better writer than D&D.
Actually I think I got it pinned down here, the places where the 'show' surpasses the 'books' is entirely due to the performance of some of the actors in bringing the characters to life. Doesn't apply to every character but an obvious one is Charles Dance is greater than Tywin Lannister. The performers really deserve a bow here.
I've never been one to complain about the show. ASoIF became my favorite series well before it came up for an HBO adaption I had never been more hyped. Even if it has some shortcomings, seeing the series I've come to know & love get it's proper respect on screen I can't help but love every minute of it. But it still doesn't change the fact that the books are vastly superior, and GRRM is a far better writer than D&D.
Actually I think I got it pinned down here, the places where the 'show' surpasses the 'books' is entirely due to the performance of some of the actors in bringing the characters to life. Doesn't apply to every character but an obvious one is Charles Dance is greater than Tywin Lannister. The performers really deserve a bow here.
I can agree with the point about fights, sometimes at least, and it's not solely down to medium-inherent differences.
Points 4 through 6, though, I vehemently disagree with. Particularly the last, about elevating minor characters; the book gives a much greater focus to a wider range of characters, minors included, so I'm unsure how that conclusion was reached.
Points 4 through 6, though, I vehemently disagree with. Particularly the last, about elevating minor characters; the book gives a much greater focus to a wider range of characters, minors included, so I'm unsure how that conclusion was reached.
Actually, the largest factor provoking Tyrion to shoot his father was Jamie's revelation that his former wife wasn't a paid prostitute at all, had in fact married him for love, and that his father had engineered to have him divorce her and participate in her gang-rape.
Which the show's writers, in their incredibly finite wisdom, decided to leave out, deciding that five minutes of Tyrion and Jamie talking about beetle-smashing was a better use of their time.
It's an entertaining enough show. But the longer it goes on, and the farther it strays from the books, the less faith I have that the writers have the damndest idea what the hell they're doing. And the above is only one example of many.
Which the show's writers, in their incredibly finite wisdom, decided to leave out, deciding that five minutes of Tyrion and Jamie talking about beetle-smashing was a better use of their time.
It's an entertaining enough show. But the longer it goes on, and the farther it strays from the books, the less faith I have that the writers have the damndest idea what the hell they're doing. And the above is only one example of many.
Gotta get aboard the hate train for this article. I disagree with pretty much every aspect, even the battles. Whilst they were mostly well choreographed in the show, the Battle of the Blackwater and the Battle of Castle Black were incredibly underwhelming in the show, the scale of each just felt off. The subtlety and the more human characters were the best parts of the books, particularly because it made them generally more relatable and the undertones in the stories much more engaging. Reading back over certain parts when stories have come full circle made me appreciate the subtle nods and bits of dialogue that were there to find, they give those little lightbulb moments when you backtrack and suddenly you're slapping yourself wondering why you never saw it coming...
As someone who watched the show first and only recently read the books I have a similar observation to make..Callate said:
One thing that bothered me in the show was how quickly Tyrion became enfatuated with Daenarys and pledged himself to her service...Wtf Tyrion? Yes you hate Cersei and Tywin, but you also happen to like a lot of people in the 7 kingdoms, including your own brother Jaime..Wtf are you so eager to bring fire and destruction to the 7 kingdoms?
This subsequently made perfect sense in the books.. Tyrion hates EVERYONE and just wants to see the world bleed and burn. He even tells Jaime that it was indeed him who killed joffrey and says all he can do to hurt his brother as much as he can, even promising the next time they meet they will come to blows and its fortunate that he lost his sword hand for now it will be a fair fight between the crippled and the dwarf.
So in the books it makes perfect sense for a vengeful spiteful Tyrion to want to help the dragon queen.
But by making Tyrion softer in the show and much kinder, it just makes for a weird disconnect that strongly made me feel something was wrong even before reading the books and finding out about this rather important character trait change.
That bothered me greatly, because they introduced the Tysha storyline very early than promptly dropped it, to the extent that I don't know if it was even mentioned after the first season. I know a lot of show fans who don't even remember it beyond, "Oh yeah, Tywin was mean to Tyrion's girlfriend or something." It really hollowed out their relationship, and the writers didn't do a great job filling it in.Callate said:
OT: I'm not going to join the 'hate train', but I do disagree with the author. The pacing is one of the show's most notable flaws to me, as a book reader. Instead of a slow shift in a character's opinions over time, they tend to lurch from one position to another as the events of the plot outpace the screentime given to the character. Stannis is a prime example, as you never really got proper development of him being corrupted by Melisandre, certainly not to the extent that
he would burn his own daughter alive for something as simple as being snowed in.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the books were subtle in their presentation of Loras and Renly's relationship. Olenna didn't need to say that Loras was a 'sword swallower' for people to know that he and Renly was gay, the books were filled with people saying things like Margaery was like to die a maid in Renly's bed, that the servants knew to be blind and mute... one of Ser Gregor's men even calls Loras a bugger!TravelerSF said:
Whether or not the pair were seen in bed is not at all critical to understanding the relationship between the two. They also managed to discard the depth of Loras' feelings for Renly. In the books, he's beside himself with emotion, killing two of Renly's Kingsguard for their failure to save the king before refusing to serve Stannis (who he sees as partially responsible) and devoting himself to a life of chastity, maturing somewhat in his time spent as the older brother surrogate for Tommen before his headstrong nature again leads him to disaster.
In the show, he's sad for a bit, then has sex with a prostitute. He started as a well-rounded character, but they dropped the ball between seasons 2 and 3 and made him 'Margaery's gay brother,' complete with that awkward scene where he's more interested in Sansa's dress than her, because gay guys and fashion amirite?[footnote]He does have an interest in looking good, like the other 'knights of summer', but there are good ways and bad ways to introduce that character aspect.[/footnote] Instead they made him the poster-boy target for the Faith Militant, because the complex populist plot from the books about the political and military responsibilities of the church and king are harder to write than 'a bunch of conservative priests are raiding brothels and arresting gay dudes, they must be the bad guys!'
I think that the show sacrificed a lot of development in order to speed things along. In particular, a lot of the changes to Daenarys' arc during the Red Wastes and Qarth I think were unnecessary and made the characterization of her motivations and resolve from those events much less apparent in the show.
One thing I think was way better in the show than the books was the reason Jon Snow gave for wanting to join the wildlings, about Mormont ignoring Craster's tributing the walkers rather than just "I'm a bitter bastard lol"
One thing I think was way better in the show than the books was the reason Jon Snow gave for wanting to join the wildlings, about Mormont ignoring Craster's tributing the walkers rather than just "I'm a bitter bastard lol"
I somewhat agree on some aspects, but i heavily disagree with others. I think most of the characters in the show are far worse because the show leaves out just so much that defines their character. Seriously how could they leave out Tysha out of Tyrions escape? It destroys his character.
Another one? Sansa. In the books she finally manages to use her skills and intelligence in order to gain control over her own life. In the show she just goes from one abusive a***ole husband to another abusive a***ole husband. On her own free will apparently, because the viewer doesn't have enough reason to think that sansa might be single dumbest being on earth before that.
Another one? Sansa. In the books she finally manages to use her skills and intelligence in order to gain control over her own life. In the show she just goes from one abusive a***ole husband to another abusive a***ole husband. On her own free will apparently, because the viewer doesn't have enough reason to think that sansa might be single dumbest being on earth before that.
I agree with point 5 as a rule. Littlefinger, Varys and Ramsey were in my opinion much more interesting characters in the TV show, although some of that may be personal preference (Littlefinger's character, in particular, was much more explicitly a gothic antihero which may have put some people off).
But weirdly I think Shae is actually one of the exceptions. She's a character who works fine in the books but makes no sense in the show. In the books, it's obvious to everyone except Tyrion that Shae is simply using him (heck, even Tyrion is aware of it, he just never processes it because he's lonely and desperate). Her betrayal may not be a shock, but it makes sense and fits with everything we know about her character.
It feeds into a couple of major issue I have with the show more broadly. The first is the broadly positive portrayal of the utterly horrific world of medieval prostitution (there's one particular line Shae delivers in the books which is actually quite chilling when you think about it, when she seems confused by the fact that Lollys Stokeworth is reacting so badly to being gang-raped, "all they did was fuck her").
The second is that the show's creators seems to be convinced Tyrion is a good guy when actually, Tyrion in the books is a pretty spiteful, unpleasant and ultimately unlovable human being who has people murdered without a hint of remorse and takes out his personal insecurity on anyone weaker than him. Plus, he's always described as incredibly ugly (which Peter Dinklage is certainly not). There is no reason for Shae to feel anything for him, and thus her overblown sexuality reads incredibly false. In the TV show, it's always ambiguous how much of what's going on is meant to be deception which makes the whole thing confusing and the betrayal arbitrary.
But the worst thing, I think, is what this does to the message. Shae in the books is the product of a profession and an environment in which women are forced to sell themselves to men, and to sell an illusion of sexuality to men, in order to survive. When Tyrion murders Shae, there is nothing remotely justifiable or principled about it. It's simply a petty little revenge from a petty little man who made the incredibly obvious mistake of assuming that money and power could buy him genuine affection. In the TV show, the failure is entirely Shae's, because oh my gosh why would she betray Tyrion? He was in love with her and she betrayed him and fucked his dad because they had an argument! What a *****!
Tragic, yes, but Tyrion and Shae doesn't really work as a tragic love story. There's a huge elephant in the room, which is that Tyrion is a rich and powerful nobleman, and Shae is a prostitute. The basis of their relationship is a massive imbalance of power, which is simply ignored in the TV show. I don't think that's an improvement, personally.
But weirdly I think Shae is actually one of the exceptions. She's a character who works fine in the books but makes no sense in the show. In the books, it's obvious to everyone except Tyrion that Shae is simply using him (heck, even Tyrion is aware of it, he just never processes it because he's lonely and desperate). Her betrayal may not be a shock, but it makes sense and fits with everything we know about her character.
It feeds into a couple of major issue I have with the show more broadly. The first is the broadly positive portrayal of the utterly horrific world of medieval prostitution (there's one particular line Shae delivers in the books which is actually quite chilling when you think about it, when she seems confused by the fact that Lollys Stokeworth is reacting so badly to being gang-raped, "all they did was fuck her").
The second is that the show's creators seems to be convinced Tyrion is a good guy when actually, Tyrion in the books is a pretty spiteful, unpleasant and ultimately unlovable human being who has people murdered without a hint of remorse and takes out his personal insecurity on anyone weaker than him. Plus, he's always described as incredibly ugly (which Peter Dinklage is certainly not). There is no reason for Shae to feel anything for him, and thus her overblown sexuality reads incredibly false. In the TV show, it's always ambiguous how much of what's going on is meant to be deception which makes the whole thing confusing and the betrayal arbitrary.
But the worst thing, I think, is what this does to the message. Shae in the books is the product of a profession and an environment in which women are forced to sell themselves to men, and to sell an illusion of sexuality to men, in order to survive. When Tyrion murders Shae, there is nothing remotely justifiable or principled about it. It's simply a petty little revenge from a petty little man who made the incredibly obvious mistake of assuming that money and power could buy him genuine affection. In the TV show, the failure is entirely Shae's, because oh my gosh why would she betray Tyrion? He was in love with her and she betrayed him and fucked his dad because they had an argument! What a *****!
Tragic, yes, but Tyrion and Shae doesn't really work as a tragic love story. There's a huge elephant in the room, which is that Tyrion is a rich and powerful nobleman, and Shae is a prostitute. The basis of their relationship is a massive imbalance of power, which is simply ignored in the TV show. I don't think that's an improvement, personally.
6 Ways Game of Thrones Surpasses Its Source Material
Movies or TV shows based on books tend to disappoint, but here's how Game of Thrones uses its format to its advantage.
Read Full Article
Movies or TV shows based on books tend to disappoint, but here's how Game of Thrones uses its format to its advantage.
Read Full Article
I know several people who say the latest book is badly paced and goes absolutely nowhere, to point of calling George a "f***ing idiot" and "a bloke who doesn't know how to finish a story". Edit: and "he will make another 2 books before anything of relevance happens"
On the other hand they all stopped watching the show after the bettle conversation as they "don't trust the show makers to tell the real story anymore"
On the other hand they all stopped watching the show after the bettle conversation as they "don't trust the show makers to tell the real story anymore"
I disagree on all points except the last one which has been really fantastic and makes the show really worth it even to people who know the books word for word however this has also arguably lead to less depth in some of the main cast like Jon Snow. It's really only the fourth book that has pacing issues with longer chapters with a less clear aim to them (as well as entire POV character storyline which were unneccessary). The fifth books is paced fine it just doesn't end properly.
The fights (especially the battles) in the show have all been slightly disappointing to me (except of course the battle at Hardhome which was fucking brilliant and was only alluded to in the book)because they leave out fun and clever stategic details (THE CHAIN!) for reasons of budget and spectacle. The battle at the wall was particularly disappointing, the Night's Watch made really terrible tactical decisions so that there could be justifications for the one on one swordfights between significant characters in a courtyard. They really missed an opportunity to show how great a leader Jon Snow can be and riot/ dragon attack in the fighting pits missed the chance to make Daenerys look badass (which is unusual for the show) taming/retaming her dragon because they wanted it to be a sweet "dragon comes to save mummy" moment which I liked less.
The fights (especially the battles) in the show have all been slightly disappointing to me (except of course the battle at Hardhome which was fucking brilliant and was only alluded to in the book)because they leave out fun and clever stategic details (THE CHAIN!) for reasons of budget and spectacle. The battle at the wall was particularly disappointing, the Night's Watch made really terrible tactical decisions so that there could be justifications for the one on one swordfights between significant characters in a courtyard. They really missed an opportunity to show how great a leader Jon Snow can be and riot/ dragon attack in the fighting pits missed the chance to make Daenerys look badass (which is unusual for the show) taming/retaming her dragon because they wanted it to be a sweet "dragon comes to save mummy" moment which I liked less.
While the books were an interesting read, they were paced poorly, and filled with unnecessary fluff and side arcs that went nowhere, presumably in an attempt to pad out the book and nothing more. Given how long it takes for him to finish a book, and that he has to reference fan sites to keep track of what he has and hasn't done, I don't believe he will finish the series. His apathy is palpable.
It's my OPINION that Martin is, at best, a mediocre writer with poor characterization skills. The show writers are better in that they are better with characters. I will say that Martin has created an interesting world and gave the show writers a good jumping off point, one which most TV and screen writers would probably never conceive of on their own.
I also think it's hilarious that the show is stated to have better pacing as compared to the book because the pacing is completely abysmal still, in my opinion. I do think it has gotten better, however.
I think the choreography is ok. It is better, substantially, compared to a lot of other shows though. I tried watching The Bastard Executioner, but between the bad choreography and need to show accurate dental hygiene of the era, I find it far less enjoyable. But truthfully, the show more often than not doesn't bother with any choreography and opts to show us the end result of combat. That usually means we see blood and gore and little else. Sure, we have seen a couple of fun battles (especially from the last season), but there isn't much there most of the time.
I wouldn't call the show less subtle, I would say it outright ignores a whole lot that is in the book. Everyone loves to talk about the theories of Jon Snow's mother, but it's something that is utterly ignored in the show more than anything. The writers literally just choose to not write anything about it, or at least as far as I can tell. It came up in the first season, but after that it was completely dropped.
So far as elevating minor characters: that is not a strong point. They are just fodder. Martin writes a lot of fodder characters in his work, and the show has mimicked that pretty well to it's detriment. Though the characterization is better in the show, the reason why characters exist is essentially the same, they are there to say a few lines and die, typically in some off putting bloody manner.
I also think it's hilarious that the show is stated to have better pacing as compared to the book because the pacing is completely abysmal still, in my opinion. I do think it has gotten better, however.
I think the choreography is ok. It is better, substantially, compared to a lot of other shows though. I tried watching The Bastard Executioner, but between the bad choreography and need to show accurate dental hygiene of the era, I find it far less enjoyable. But truthfully, the show more often than not doesn't bother with any choreography and opts to show us the end result of combat. That usually means we see blood and gore and little else. Sure, we have seen a couple of fun battles (especially from the last season), but there isn't much there most of the time.
I wouldn't call the show less subtle, I would say it outright ignores a whole lot that is in the book. Everyone loves to talk about the theories of Jon Snow's mother, but it's something that is utterly ignored in the show more than anything. The writers literally just choose to not write anything about it, or at least as far as I can tell. It came up in the first season, but after that it was completely dropped.
So far as elevating minor characters: that is not a strong point. They are just fodder. Martin writes a lot of fodder characters in his work, and the show has mimicked that pretty well to it's detriment. Though the characterization is better in the show, the reason why characters exist is essentially the same, they are there to say a few lines and die, typically in some off putting bloody manner.
I've given up on the show now that the dynamic duo of Beniof and Weiss have butchered one of the major characters of the books by turning them from a decent person into a reprehensible person.