Game of Thrones - I give up

hornedcow

New member
Jun 4, 2013
28
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
I'm not an expert the fur trade, but I'm fairly sure they kill the animals before skinning them.
 

Nvv

New member
Sep 28, 2009
227
0
0
omega 616 said:
Like I said I don't know if he sold it, it burnt down, he still has it or what ... I have only watched half an episode, some child king telling nude women to hit each other and some woman set a dude on fire then give an inspiring speech to an army of ex-slaves (or something).
Not sure if this has been pointed out to you or anything, but if that's the episode you've seen you jumped straight into the middle of season 3 (well, not sure about that, seeing as those scenes are from different episodes); meaning you don't get the context.

However, if it's the nudity that offends you in the show then you probably won't like season 1 either; just saying that by the point in the story you saw you're supposed to be invested in the characters. For example: By that point the Child King is already established as an unstable and vicious character, the purpose of that scene is to show the true depths of his sadism. It could probably be acheived without the nudity, but it wouldn't be as hard-hitting.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
I somehow doubt they use real fur.

OT. Were people really not expecting
Robb and all of them to die?

cause I don't read the books. And I saw that coming a mile away.

It had been being foreshadowed for weeks now.
Not sure how people didn't see Robb dying in time. As I was reading the books, it was obvious that 1) Jon and Arya are higher up on the food chain than Robb and 2) Robb is an idiot-Tully (unlike Brynden, the rare Uber-Tully), so Robb lets emotions turn him into an utter fool (same as his mother) and make every possible bad decision he could make. His death was inevitable. I was hoping that Grey Wind would live though, like another poster.

The thing that kills me about the Red Wedding in the show is the whole Talissa (sp?) thing. What the hell was wrong with having Jeyne Westerling in the story? Even if you are going to kill her at the Red Wedding
which doesn't happen in the books, and she is kept around on the off chance she might be pregnant, and she could have some further importance later
why not just leave her as Jeyne? Why create some random nobody character to stand in place of another, currently, mostly nobody character
who is both alive, and could impact later events
?
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Beliyal said:
I understand if that's strange for you to watch and it puts you off, but there is literally no logical reason for it. You are missing out on an incredibly well made story, in both the TV show and the books themselves especially, because of an illogical and probably cultural disdain to look at naked people (and because you immediately link it to pornography. Which is not true; naked people don't immediately mean that the material is pornographic).
I am going to avoid everything about the how the book has nudity which means the tv series must, which I think is bull shit in of itself ... come on, in all but 1 iteration of Sherlock Holmes stories Watson is a man but in "Elementary" Watson is played by Lucy Liu. In Thor, Heimdall is played by a black guy. In the Fantastic four reboot the human torch could be played by a black guy but you're telling me "if the book has nudity the tv series has to as well"?

Just to clarify, I have no problem with actresses or black actors AT ALL! I was just pointing out that stories can be changed, not that it's a good or bad thing that it has been!

The reason I am going to avoid it is 'cos I have previously (with the help of Legion) stated my why I am ... not so much against it, just not a fan of it.

Instead I want to clear up a few mistakes you have made about my character.

It's not strange for me, it just puts me off.

Opinions aren't always logical. It's a matter of taste, I think mushrooms are fucking vile but a lot enjoy them (see what I did thar?)

Then it shall be my loss to endure for the rest of my pitiful existence. It's a story, I'll get over it ... in fact, I was never upset about it.

Cultural disdain? That can't be it, I get through my share of porn ...

I don't link it to porn, despite my last sentence. I just like to watch a tv series for the story and I find tits, ass and cock to ruin it for me ... not 'cos I am asexual, prude or in anyway conservative but 'cos I do not enjoy it when mixed with a serious story.

When I say "serious story" I mean porn has a story but "my sink is leaking, better call the barely dressed plumber who I can't afford, so will repay with sexual favors" isn't serious.

T0RD said:
Not sure if this has been pointed out to you or anything, but if that's the episode you've seen you jumped straight into the middle of season 3 (well, not sure about that, seeing as those scenes are from different episodes); meaning you don't get the context.

However, if it's the nudity that offends you in the show then you probably won't like season 1 either; just saying that by the point in the story you saw you're supposed to be invested in the characters. For example: By that point the Child King is already established as an unstable and vicious character, the purpose of that scene is to show the true depths of his sadism. It could probably be acheived without the nudity, but it wouldn't be as hard-hitting.
My mistake, I was listing all the parts I've seen ... I am well aware they are from entirely different episodes. I've seen half of the very first episode, then at a friends house seen those other 2 scenes.

Who said nudity offends me? Being offended by a naked man or women is insane to me.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
Did what happened piss me off?

Yes. I'm very angry at multiple characters on the show.

Honestly, though? It's nothing compared to what Joss Whedon inflicted on me when I marathon'd Buffy/Angel roughly six months ago. Not to mention the frustration I felt at BioWare's complete failure with Mass Effect 3.

The Red Wedding was an intricate set of domino pieces that had been carefully placed over the course of multiple seasons/books, where George R. R. Martin finally decided to flip over that one crucial piece that took the rest of the set down with it. It was sad, it was frustrating... it was glorious.

Now keep calm and kill Walder Frey with dragon fire.
 

NortherWolf

New member
Jun 26, 2008
235
0
0
Stu35 said:
Ah fair enough.

Always got the fact that he draws on medieval Europe for the general "feel" of the universe (right down to Westeros, in it's own way, being geographically representative of Great Britain, a feel helped by casting Northern actors (and actors willing to put on a Northern accent) to play Starks). Didn't realise there were people trying to claim it was realistic, or anything other than a fantasy land.

Gotta draw on something though - all fantasy draws on some kind of reality.
Ah, true enough. And it's not like he's as terrible as Eddings <.<
I just have a pet peeve against Martin and his more outspoken fans.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Alarien said:
My thoughts on how off the show is, for me, can be summed up by pointing out the thoughts of someone who watched the show and then the read the books. They indicated that they were put off by the books because, one of their favorite show characters, Catelyn, is an obnoxious ***** in the books. Yep, she is. That's the problem. You can't "make Cersei sympathetic" or completely change a character like Catelyn and still have people like me, who are in it for the characters as much as the story, and keep us as fans. It's just too much.

Tyrion in the show rocks though. Despite the fact that he's nowhere near as repulsive as he's supposed to be. Eh. I can pass on that, considering the actor's on-screen ability is just great. Most of the rest of the cast was pretty poorly cast though. :/
As a book purist I'm surprised you're championing Dinklage's Tyrion, whose aggressive white washing on the part of the show runners has almost entirely altered his character.

I've spent long, long posts before absolutely castigating the show for some of its bizarre story and character departures and loss of depth, but I do think you're overstating the problem somewhat here. The casting has been fairly strong, the performances have been good, and much of the essence of the novels has been carried forward. I really enjoy re-experiencing books and films and games I love vicariously through unspoiled people, and thus I've spent MANY hours reading through forums where "Unsullied" comment on the show, make predictions, and discuss the characters. And I can usually peg pretty easily who the show has communicated well from the books, and who it hasn't. And it's communicated the VAST majority of the characters VERY well, despite my misgivings.

Except for Tyrion.

NortherWolf said:
Ah, true enough. And it's not like he's as terrible as Eddings <.<

I just have a pet peeve against Martin and his more outspoken fans.
I've never really understood punishing or holding a low opinion of an artist because of their fan base. There are precious few qualifications to be a fan of a piece of media, you just have to pick it up and like it. "Fans" seldom share anything in common besides their enthusiasm for the subject matter, nor are they likely to share a great many characteristics with the artist.

I mean...I guess I can understand how having one or two special, overzealous fans of X in your life can leave you sick to the gills of hearing about X (I went through this with my girlfriend and Doctor Who), but it's a hell of a jump to get from "God I am sick of hearing about Game of Thrones" to "Martin is a mediocre writer". He's been an award winning cross-genre writer for thirty-eight years. There comes a point in someone's career when you sort of have to give them their due, whether you like them or not. I mean, I'm not a big fan of Tolkien, but I acknowledge that the problem is me, not Tolkien. He's just not to my taste, and the loss is mine.

I think you could probably fairly question whether or not Martin is in decline. He's become obsessed with world building and fine detail, and his novels are starting to struggle with pacing as a result (not to mention taking a comically long time for him to write). Some have also hypothesized that he's as sick of hearing about ASoIaF as you are, is used to being able to trip between projects as whimsy seizes him rather than knuckle under the pressure of a seven volume epic, and has become vaguely resentful of the whole thing. Who knows.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
omega 616 said:
Beliyal said:
I understand if that's strange for you to watch and it puts you off, but there is literally no logical reason for it. You are missing out on an incredibly well made story, in both the TV show and the books themselves especially, because of an illogical and probably cultural disdain to look at naked people (and because you immediately link it to pornography. Which is not true; naked people don't immediately mean that the material is pornographic).
I am going to avoid everything about the how the book has nudity which means the tv series must, which I think is bull shit in of itself ... come on, in all but 1 iteration of Sherlock Holmes stories Watson is a man but in "Elementary" Watson is played by Lucy Liu. In Thor, Heimdall is played by a black guy. In the Fantastic four reboot the human torch could be played by a black guy but you're telling me "if the book has nudity the tv series has to as well"?

Just to clarify, I have no problem with actresses or black actors AT ALL! I was just pointing out that stories can be changed, not that it's a good or bad thing that it has been!

The reason I am going to avoid it is 'cos I have previously (with the help of Legion) stated my why I am ... not so much against it, just not a fan of it.

Instead I want to clear up a few mistakes you have made about my character.

It's not strange for me, it just puts me off.

Opinions aren't always logical. It's a matter of taste, I think mushrooms are fucking vile but a lot enjoy them (see what I did thar?)

Then it shall be my loss to endure for the rest of my pitiful existence. It's a story, I'll get over it ... in fact, I was never upset about it.

Cultural disdain? That can't be it, I get through my share of porn ...

I don't link it to porn, despite my last sentence. I just like to watch a tv series for the story and I find tits, ass and cock to ruin it for me ... not 'cos I am asexual, prude or in anyway conservative but 'cos I do not enjoy it when mixed with a serious story.

When I say "serious story" I mean porn has a story but "my sink is leaking, better call the barely dressed plumber who I can't afford, so will repay with sexual favors" isn't serious.
Well, if they are adapting the book and turning it into a TV show, wouldn't it make sense to use the same feel and overall experience like the one from the book? Censoring nudity or violence from a TV show adaption of the A Song of Ice and Fire books would be pretty much like removing elves and dwarves from Lord of the Rings for example. The overall story would still make sense and it could be adapted to work without them, but viewers would miss out on something.

But why on Earth would they remove any images of sex from it? I am telling you as a person who read the books; removing it would be a mistake. A lot of characterizations benefit from it, as well as a lot of plots. Martin created a world that feels like the real one exactly because it portrays things that have been ignored a lot by authors and TV show makers, even though those things are a vital part of everyday life to most people. Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly.

And what? Including sex means the story is not serious? What. That just makes no sense. Sex is a party of the story, just as much as it's a part of life; it's not something that happens randomly at one point just because the directors wanted to fulfill the "Sexy time!" 2 minutes per episode rule. I am saddened and slightly worried that you are unable to understand that when two people have sex, it might mean something other than directors trying to give you a boner, which you seem to imply. Maybe that scene tells us something about those people. It's not something invented yesterday; good storytelling uses a lot of means to tell us stuff about the characters; intimacy, relationships and sex included. Sure, you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure". I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this goes beyond the pure "opinions are not logical". Just you know, if you are aware that your opinions are not logical, why keep them ardently?
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
Alarien said:
The thing that kills me about the Red Wedding in the show is the whole Talissa (sp?) thing. What the hell was wrong with having Jeyne Westerling in the story? Even if you are going to kill her at the Red Wedding
which doesn't happen in the books, and she is kept around on the off chance she might be pregnant, and she could have some further importance later
why not just leave her as Jeyne? Why create some random nobody character to stand in place of another, currently, mostly nobody character
who is both alive, and could impact later events
?
I considered that also, I've not re-read up to the end of the books, but I distinctly recall Westerling being alive. However, this only becomes relevant if Jeyne Westerling remains relevant - otherwise changing her character to one easier to introduce makes no real odds, she's a plot device, nothing more - even in the books, the backstory required to introduce the Westerling house and their relationship with the Lannisters would take up a fair amount of screentime and dialogue (and to be honest, the character they got to replace Jeyne Westerling already got too much screen time and dialogue). Honestly? I don't think Jeyne Westerling will remain relevant - if memory serves, she was not pregnant by Robb Stark (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm working my way back through the books and haven't made it past clash of kings yet.)
 

TheMyffic

New member
May 3, 2011
26
0
0
The game of thrones is ruthless. That's a central point. The plot is intricate, with lots of unexpected twists and turns. You're reaction only serves to remind me that this isn't the usual Hollywood fluff, and I appreciate it all the more for it.

Enjoy it if you dare. I know I will.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Beliyal said:
Well, if they are adapting the book and turning it into a TV show, wouldn't it make sense to use the same feel and overall experience like the one from the book? Censoring nudity or violence from a TV show adaption of the A Song of Ice and Fire books would be pretty much like removing elves and dwarves from Lord of the Rings for example. The overall story would still make sense and it could be adapted to work without them, but viewers would miss out on something.

But why on Earth would they remove any images of sex from it? I am telling you as a person who read the books; removing it would be a mistake. A lot of characterizations benefit from it, as well as a lot of plots. Martin created a world that feels like the real one exactly because it portrays things that have been ignored a lot by authors and TV show makers, even though those things are a vital part of everyday life to most people. Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly.

And what? Including sex means the story is not serious? What. That just makes no sense. Sex is a party of the story, just as much as it's a part of life; it's not something that happens randomly at one point just because the directors wanted to fulfill the "Sexy time!" 2 minutes per episode rule. I am saddened and slightly worried that you are unable to understand that when two people have sex, it might mean something other than directors trying to give you a boner, which you seem to imply. Maybe that scene tells us something about those people. It's not something invented yesterday; good storytelling uses a lot of means to tell us stuff about the characters; intimacy, relationships and sex included. Sure, you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure". I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this goes beyond the pure "opinions are not logical". Just you know, if you are aware that your opinions are not logical, why keep them ardently?
So much for being sorry about dragging me back into this conversation that has already been explained to you.

And I thought Watson was a dude, not to mention things like all movies based on games never follow the games. Just going round in circles here ...

Yeah, they would miss out on naked people.

Now who is equating nudity and sex? "Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly." I don't have a problem with sex, just about every adult tv programme (I don't mean XXX channels, I mean soaps and dramas) has sex in ... they just don't need to show it.

Way to miss my point entirely. I was saying GOT has a serious story, character arcs, twists, reveals, mystery etc but porn isn't a serious story.

Did you really just argue both sides at the same time? "you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure" ... I might as well not bother if you're going to argue for me, just to be clear my argument is "you can create a meaningful story without sex"

The reason I don't like this is the same as the reason you don't like Justin Bieber/dying featus/*insert something you don't like here* ... there is no accounting for taste.

Now, will you please just accept that some people don't like things you do? Sure we can discuss likes and dislikes but I made my point before you ever quoted me. Save yourself the effort and read a previous post or what Legion said about my cynicism.

EDIT: I'm not saying that last bit to be a dick ... just think it's better for the both of us.
 

ViciousTide

New member
Aug 5, 2011
210
0
0
Why didn't lady Grey throw the knife at the king and kill the king in the last ten seconds out of a complete rage type take down? I would have pretended to be all frozen for 2 seconds, then bam thrown it unexpectedly even if arrows are on their way to fill my body.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
ViciousTide said:
Why didn't lady Grey throw the knife at the king and kill the king in the last ten seconds out of a complete rage type take down? I would have pretended to be all frozen for 2 seconds, then bam thrown it unexpectedly even if arrows are on their way to fill my body.
Not many highborn ladies count "ninja style knife throwing" amongst their many talents, especially not when they have a crossbow bolt through their shoulder and are in the middle of a grief fueled mental breakdown.
 

Rangerboy87

New member
Jul 1, 2011
182
0
0
In a way, I understand what you're saying. When I read that chapter in the book, I honestly had to stop and take it in for a few minutes; then I reread it again. This was probably the most mindblown I had been since Ned's death. But if George has made one thing clear since Ned's death, it is this: no one is safe and nothing will go as you think. I knew the show couldn't leave it out or rework somehow. It's like Ned's death: it's a huge part of the story. There is a lot of backlash, second-guessing, and suspicion that comes from this. Reworking this would change a lot of the story.

Honestly, this point actually re-enthused me for the story. It was starting to feel bogged down with the different side stories, but this really kicked the story back up into hair-raising. I started reading a lot more aggressively after that and I'm glad I did, cause the rest of the book keeps up the pace.

If you will let me try to encourage you to finish Storm of Swords or watch Season 4: George definitely makes this one up. I won't say how, but if this pissed you off, the second half should make it up to you. Give it a try, it might bring back those old feelings you once had.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
As a book purist I'm surprised you're championing Dinklage's Tyrion, whose aggressive white washing on the part of the show runners has almost entirely altered his character.

I've spent long, long posts before absolutely castigating the show for some of its bizarre story and character departures and loss of depth, but I do think you're overstating the problem somewhat here. The casting has been fairly strong, the performances have been good, and much of the essence of the novels has been carried forward. I really enjoy re-experiencing books and films and games I love vicariously through unspoiled people, and thus I've spent MANY hours reading through forums where "Unsullied" comment on the show, make predictions, and discuss the characters. And I can usually peg pretty easily who the show has communicated well from the books, and who it hasn't. And it's communicated the VAST majority of the characters VERY well, despite my misgivings.

Except for Tyrion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing the casting of a (as my wife puts it) almost attractive here as opposed to a much more appropriate actor for the part of Tyrion. I just like this guy too much as he plays the part. Yes, he's WAY off of what Tyrion really is, but I do get Tyrion's cynical humor, wit, and intelligence from the part, so I'm ok with it.

Most of the rest of my complaints about casting are quibbles (age, look, etc) but some are just too far off from the way they are described in the book for me to work (Theon comes to mind).

However, if it was just casting, I would still be watching the show (my wife watches it nearby and I just get irritated every time I look over or she fills me in). Casting I can get over. When I first saw Eyrie (a medieval castle literally sitting on a mountain) depicted as Jabba's Palace sitting on a low mesa, I realized things were off. It was things that changed the heart of the show or characters that made me hate it. Cersei aborted Robert's baby (she didn't have a beautiful brown haired baby that lived for a short time). Cersei and Robert would never reminisce about their "good times." Catelyn would never sit up all night praying for Jon to live. Theon wasn't a horrific troll.

And then the story/name changes that make no sense to me. Asha Greyjoy is important. Osha is a bit part/plot device. Why change Asha's name when Osha's name could be changed and have no real impact? Besides "Yara" sounds stupid. Change Osha's name if there is confusion. Change the LESSER character. Why have the Reed's make a late appearance, or did you not read far enough ahead to realize that they were hugely important and you thought you could write them out, only realizing after Dance that you had to keep them in? Why change Jeyne Westerling to a nobody and kill her? What was wrong with just having Jeyne and having her disappear from the cast after she survives the Red Wedding? Why kill off Irri? Why have Dany's dragons stolen (wtf?!)? Why show us a season of Theon being tortured when you know you're going to have to torture the crap out of him later... giving us all torture fatigue. Why take out Edric Storm and completely change Gendry's story, making the pre-Catelyn "King's Men" far more mercenary than they actually were? Why change Loras' association with the Kingsguard as some sort of marriage foil for Sansa and Cersei? What happened to the Kettleblacks? Oh wait, the ever-present "people are too stupid to keep up with too many characters" argument... well, we're screwed for that one, as books 4 and 5 introduce a never ending parade of new characters.

What are people going to do when faced with the onslaught of incoming characters?

Some real spoilier warnings here, if you have not read Feast and Dance:
The Sand Snakes (guessing we'll limit them down to 1 or none)
Arianne Martell
Doran Martell
Quenten Martell
Ser Jon Connington
Prince Aegon Targaryen
Aeron Greyjoy
Victarion Greyjoy
Euron Greyjoy
Countless annoying Ghiscari characters
Penny
Ser Wyman Manderly

and this is just the major plot point characters, we won't even mention the huge number of side characters, such as the Royces, Harry the Heir, the rest of the Vale, the numerous Wildling characters, Val(?), Bolton's bannerman, numerous important Greyjoy retainers, the Maesters of the Citadel, Pate(?)

At this point, I'll make a prediction. Mance will be married to Val/Dalla, but whichever one they choose, the other won't exist and she won't die in childbirth during the battle at the Wall. Mance's actual wife will survive at the wall with her baby, rather than Dalla dying in childbirth and Val keeping the child (for a time). People don't have the attention span to follow anything that intricate.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
omega 616 said:
So much for being sorry about dragging me back into this conversation that has already been explained to you.

And I thought Watson was a dude, not to mention things like all movies based on games never follow the games. Just going round in circles here ...

Yeah, they would miss out on naked people.

Now who is equating nudity and sex? "Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly." I don't have a problem with sex, just about every adult tv programme (I don't mean XXX channels, I mean soaps and dramas) has sex in ... they just don't need to show it.

Way to miss my point entirely. I was saying GOT has a serious story, character arcs, twists, reveals, mystery etc but porn isn't a serious story.

Did you really just argue both sides at the same time? "you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure" ... I might as well not bother if you're going to argue for me, just to be clear my argument is "you can create a meaningful story without sex"

The reason I don't like this is the same as the reason you don't like Justin Bieber/dying featus/*insert something you don't like here* ... there is no accounting for taste.

Now, will you please just accept that some people don't like things you do? Sure we can discuss likes and dislikes but I made my point before you ever quoted me. Save yourself the effort and read a previous post or what Legion said about my cynicism.

EDIT: I'm not saying that last bit to be a dick ... just think it's better for the both of us.
I am just trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from mine. From what you are saying, I am kinda struggling to do so.

And yes, of course I said that you can have a meaningful story without sex. Does that mean that sex serves no purpose in media and narrative whatsoever and that it should never be included, unless in porn? Of course not. We have media with and without sexual content. And not all media with sexual content is porn. I believe I read the post you are referring to and I replied to that user as well.

I apologize for making you write all this again. I simply don't understand, but I'll satisfy myself with the argument I spelled out for you and with the fact that you simply don't like it.

Let me just note that I am in no way some fervent advocate for lots of sex in media. Makes no difference to me. I've watched and read many stuff where sex was really purely gratuitous and I dislike it when sex is included just 'cause. I'd just like to state that A Song of Ice and Fire is not one of those examples and it does the material injustice to claim it is. But alright, I cannot change the feeling you got from watching it, nor should I.
 

AkatsukiLeader13

New member
Mar 12, 2012
56
0
0
Alarien: While I don't disagree entirely with what you said there is something very important that I feel you (and some of the other people here) are forgetting, the medium. TV is a far different medium from novels. I'm sure everyone here will agree that you can't fit the entirety of novel into TV series. Some scenes and characters have to be cut out, others have to be merged with similar scenes, new scenes created to convey the basic message of cut scenes, etc. to tell largely the same story. The scene in the first season where Robert and Cersei sit down and talk about marriage was a scene that I rather liked. It did a fine job of conveying that beneath all their collective baggage there had been some affection between, I doubt either of them ever truly loved the other but there were some feelings-even if they were small-between them.

As for the scene where Cersei said her firstborn had lived for awhile before dying, stop for a moment and look at the scene in which she's telling that story. She's telling it to Catelyn as she watches over the unconscious Bran and she's telling it as an act of fake empathy with Cat. We already know her involvement in Bran's fall so even if they never explain that she aborted her own child with Robert we have a strong idea that she's just playing the act of the sympathetic well-wisher she's supposed to. It's the same thing as Tyrion telling Joffrey to give his sympathies to the Starks despite the fact he doesn't care. Indeed the whole thing is to enforce the idea that the Lannisters are lairs and all around bad people in contrast to the Starks. In fact a friend of mine who's never read the novels saw that scene and said to me 'ah she's liar. That kid never even existed.' or something along those lines. I then explained that she did in fact have that child but aborted it which didn't change his opinion of her at all because whether they kept that in the TV series she was still liar.

Same message just told differently.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Abandon4093 said:
omega 616 said:
Sex is often strewn throughout 'serious' literature.

And the point isn't that it couldn't have been taken away for the TV show. But what taking it away would have added?

I can't think of anything.

Most adults can accept sex and especially nudity, in serous dramas or fantasies. There is nothing shameful about nudity or sex, and if you accept that as you claim. I don't see how you could then, in the same breath, say that you can't take a TV show seriously if it has nudity.

The examples of the changes you brought up can easily be explained by their agenda.

Elementary wanted to distinguish itself from Sherlock, and having a female Watson was just a very easy way to do that.

Heimdal was black because Idris fucking rocked the role and Johnny is probably going to be black because they want to coast on the controversy that the Heimdal fiasco inadvertently created to generate free publicity.

Now what would be the purpose of removing sex from the plot that is soaked in it? Because I can only think of 'appeasing the prudes' as a viable reason.

It certainly wouldn't add anything to the story or the way it's told.

I don't think I said I couldn't take it seriously, if I did then I apologize. As I have said to somebody else you like the things you like and I will like the things that I like. I don't like nudity in programmes for the same reason you don't like whatever you don't like ... it's just the way I am, there doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason.

I have implied and out right said multiple time throughout this thread I think it's fan service, you and a lot of others don't.

For any further responses please read a previous post, it will probably say the same thing as what I would have posted anyway .... in fact if I get quoted again in this thread I will just highlight this reply, CTRL+C, CTRL+V it ... make my life easier and answer the question.