Game of thrones: why is it so WRONG.?

[teebeeohh]

A great deal of adaptation was necessary to make Lord of the Rings suitable for the big screen. Whole scenes and characters chopped before filming even began, dialogue shifted and given to other characters, etc. The end result was three of the best adventure movies ever. Have you got a crypt's worth of bones to pick about that as well?

Did you see The Avengers? Are you going to tell us Thor should be this fellow [img/]http://media1.shmoop.com/images/mythology/thor-hammer-attack.jpeg[/img] instead of Chris Hemsworth in magi-tech armor? Or that Hulk should be Frankenstein's monster or Mr Hyde rather than an adaptation of both?

What is this thing people have, this defect that makes them say, "I hate this with every fiber of my being....but give me more!" If adaptation bothers you so much, maybe you could, I dunno, stop watching the series?

thor in the marvel universe is not thor from norse mythology, he is an alien that kinda sorta inspired norse mythology. and bringin up lotr is not really a good example since there was A LOT of complaining about all the cahnges that were done for the movies.

OP: some of your complains are valid(arya) but others are just bitching because it's different, the Reeds are still perfectly capable of doing what they need to do in terms of the plot.

 

[Shockolate]

My biggest issue was the complete removal of almost everything to do with Lyanna Stark, Rhaegar Targaryen and the Reed family. The books suggested a lot of foreshadowing in regards to these characters, but they are gone in the television version.

Jojen and Meera Reed were in last week's episode.

Bran also had a dream about Jojen before he was introduced. I can't remember when.

Just sayin'.

 

[amuasyeas]

I hope Martin can get his shit together for his last 2 books. He probably shouldn't kill so many characters if he can't keep the story interesting.

 

[Cabisco]

Generally I think a lot of the changes have been for the better, some of the best scenes in the series have been created by the writers rather than in the books, the whole Tywin Arya pieces for example. I think they've done a excellent job with the series really, much better than I had ever expected.

Just to ask Mr OP Do you actually like the series? I mean the rant would suggest you hate it, but the fact you can cite so many examples suggests you've watched a lot.

 

[The Tibballs]

The first scene of the third season pissed me off, when Sam is meant show his bravery and start growing towards the man he'll someday become, it's a huge pivoting point for him and how the others see him (as Sam the Slayer) I think it's a hugely important time for him and all they can do is make him a coward who need to be rescued... and that make me sad. :'(

 

[Josh123914]

The first scene of the third season pissed me off, when Sam is meant show his bravery and start growing towards the man he'll someday become, it's a huge pivoting point for him and how the others see him (as Sam the Slayer) I think it's a hugely important time for him and all they can do is make him a coward who need to be rescued... and that make me sad. :'(

I think they did that so the audience would remember him as Sam the Coward, that way if or when he does something heroic later on it'll be a bigger deal, because by then the characters and most of the audience won't expect it.

 

[Auberon]

It's more about him being sixty and fat, which translates to "Will he finish the series before dying". As far as I recall, he has so much ambiguous and open threads that there's enough for two more books.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

Having only read the books, some of what I reading here about the show is worrying me a little bit, though I still hear good things about the show from friends who have read the books. Although some of the things people have pointed out pique my interest.

Like a greater focus on Theon, as it actually took me a little while to figure out what actually happened to him. And when I did, it made that situation a LOT more interesting.

I think it's really odd that they would give Robb a different wife in the show, as I thought it was mildly important where she came from to begin with.

But I'll try to reserve most of my judgements until I've actually watched the show.

 

[Wadders]

Again, the Reeds: It would not have been difficult, more costly or more time consuming just to introduce them in the previous series.

Yes it. How many people died in season 2 meaning the wouldn't be back in 3? They get a limited budget per season. They probably didn't have enough for 2 more actors until thy got rid of some. Costs add up quickly. There's only so much money to hire new actors each season.

Yeah fair shout. They didn't have to be in it for long, just an introduction for them I suppose, to set the scene for Bran's part in season 3, and save the time of introducing them then. Just a minor niggle really but I see your point, which I totally overlooked

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

The TV series is a fair amount better. What it loses with depth it regains with it's sensibility to make most of the characters way more realistic. Littlefinger doesn't mountain climb, seven year old Bran doesn't leap from gargoyle to gargoyle like he's a super hero, Tyrion the Dwarf doesn't best knights in one on one combat. It keeps martial and physical prowess to the characters that would sensibly have those kind of skills.

It's generally just a lot better balanced than the book series.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

You don't need a budget to not make Jon snow look like a dick

Correction, according to you Jon Snow looks like a dick.

I don't really think Jon has ever been one of the more engaging characters. In Dance he did fuck all and he's stayed a little too close to the "archetypical fantasy boy hero" for me to really warm up to him.

=====SPOILERS CONTAINED=====

I hardly think he did nothing in Dance, he did ALLOT in Dance. Also I kind of think the point of his charter has gone over your head (no offense intended, but if you can't see it).

The world is full of morally questionable Charters and supposedly "good" charters that make immoral choices in a genre that in the majority is normally painted very black and white, undeniable evil side vs whiter than white good. Martin constantly reminds us of this by going against how things are "supposed to be" in fantasy writing and even hinting at this by how many of the common folk view said charters, it's literally a main theme in his writing to the point even rebels against how things are supposed to be in his own world.

ie the first king is described by many as a powerful warrior king in essence, in reality he is not an evil man per-say but he is a fat drunk in a loveless marriage.

Jamie is a perfect example, by all means he should be the prince charming of the story, golden hair, good looks, enormous wealth and power. In reality a cut throat who cares little for others, is fucking his sister and killed the king he swore to protect. Then in the later books he again turns the tables on us when a man who is supposed to be totally morally corrupt starts doing some fairly decent decisions.

Which brings us round to Jon, bastards are viewed pretty much as scum, everyone even refers to him as Ned Stark's Bastard. He is not expected to be great, to be honorable, he is a separate entity even in his own family, this was even given a visual representation with the dire wolf's. That's why he is for the most part whiter than white (as any real person truly can be) because he shouldn't be. He's described pretty much as the one breach of honour the man with honour in his veins committed, he should be the walking embodiment of that, yet he's one of the few characters that can properly be described as good, that's why he is written like that, its the whole point that he's a little bit too good.

It's been a very long time since I had to articulate a description about literature, but hopefully I got it across, Martin's work is so full of symbolism like this it's unreal. Dani, Theon, Tyrion, Loras are all Characters that have this very strong and obvious symbolism as well.

To me in this way Martin is emulating Tolkien allot in terms of filling his books with symbolism and he's made it clear he is a fan of his works, Tolkien's were filled with references to WW1 and religion, Martin's to me is to go against stereotypes and what is expected, which I think is what makes it so good as he ropes you in by presenting these characters that are not what you would expect, but then as he takes you deeper into the characters in later books he often then goes against the assumptions you have made about those characters due to actions in earlier books.

Did you see The Avengers? Are you going to tell us Thor should be this fellow .....instead of Chris Hemsworth in magi-tech armor? Or that Hulk should be Frankenstein's monster or Mr Hyde rather than an adaptation of both?

Thor is not based off the god, the comic is it's own entity that borrows a few things from the mythology, their different charters and not meant to be the same....awkward.....don't get your point about the hulk and Frankenstein at all...their totally different fictional charters. Where as the OP is talking about a strait adaption.

In relation to the topic at hand, I love that you complain about the minor detail about jon asking to go, but not the fact he is pretty much responsible for the rangers getting killed in the tv series, as you know they are looking for him as he has gone after ygritte who he allowed to escape , which does not happen in the books, was like a major point of universal condemnation.

The rest I think is pretty much opinion and I disagree with pretty much all of it. But that's not to say I don't have my own gripes ie how they are handling Rob's story, some key differences to me that totally change the perception of the character. To me the Tv show is very very good, certainly one of the best things on TV, but it cannot be as good as the books, as it would have to be at least 8 seasons just for the books we have now to do it ALL justice. Plus the fact that you can't make a show with constant internal monologues really work robs us of allot of insight into the charcters like in the books.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It's the nature of the beast dude. TV != Books. Dexter season 1 followed the book quite closely, until the end. In the book, La Guerta dies, the brother (aka Ice Truck Killer) lives and Deb learns about Dexter's hobby. None of the other seasons follow the books at all (though there are a few nods). Legend of the Seeker didn't follow the Sword of Truth books either.

The Lord of the Rings films were tweaked and changed from the books. In he case of of GoT, Martin himself works on the show so everything happens with his knowledge. Frankly, I hated the books...or rather book as I never finished the first, so much did I dislike it. The TV is much better, and even then it's still pushing it. Most people will hate the show for the huge cast of characters, and my understanding is that there are yet more in the books that were left out because it would've just gotten silly.

You can't translate a book direct to the screen directly. If you could, you wouldn't need screenplay writers. Just relax and enjoy the show. Also the boobs.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I think people need to use some spoiler tags for things, especially if it's past season 2. I have yet to read the books, but I will say this, instead of complaining about what is a bit different on the show compared to the books, be thankful that these books you love are getting a show of this quality. Yes, some changes will be made, but the core of it is still there from what I understand. You hear the same thing from some people about Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, we get it, it's not exactly like the books.

Just be glad you get to experience something you've read on screen in a well done adaption. Things I like haven't had the same treatment (being respectful to the source), but this isn't a about those books/comics. Isn't the author himself overseeing the show too and being able to put his word in when needed, I remember hearing that from someone.

 

[Woodsey]

I haven't read any of your actual complaints because I don't read the books, but they explicitly stated that they'd be deviating after season 1.

The TV show is an adaption. Adaptions are adapted. If they weren't, they wouldn't work. Condensing plot points and even characters into one another is part of that process, as is omitting stuff entirely, as is adding some things. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the people that ask these kinda questions. See also: the people who still fucking moan about the Lord of the Rings films because Gandalf's staff is 2 inches longer than it's meant to be. (Heh.)

 

[Nouw]

I haven't read any of your actual complaints because I don't read the books, but they explicitly stated that they'd be deviating after season 1.

The TV show is an adaption. Adaptions are adapted. If they weren't, they wouldn't work. Condensing plot points and even characters into one another is part of that process, as is omitting stuff entirely, as is adding some things. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the people that ask these kinda questions. See also: the people who still fucking moan about the Lord of the Rings films because Gandalf's staff is 2 inches longer than it's meant to be. (Heh.)

W-wh-what? People complain about that kind of detail? I imagine they'd also complain about the omission of Tom Bombadil *shudders.*

 

[FoolKiller]

What a surprise... the books are better than the show. That is usually the case, especially for people that read the book(s) before it became a show/movie.

To paraphrase Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, books have the greatest graphics ever: imagination.

 

[beastro]

A great deal of adaptation was necessary to make Lord of the Rings suitable for the big screen. Whole scenes and characters chopped before filming even began, dialogue shifted and given to other characters, etc. The end result was three of the best adventure movies ever. Have you got a crypt's worth of bones to pick about that as well?

The issue with the LOTR movies is different, there the major issue was unnecessary adding that undermined core themes of the book, while with this series the changes are unnecessary swaps.

For instance, why invent a new wife for Robb? What's wrong with Jayne Westerling?

The cynic in me say it's to add more ethnic flavour to the series.

 

[Woodsey]

I haven't read any of your actual complaints because I don't read the books, but they explicitly stated that they'd be deviating after season 1.

The TV show is an adaption. Adaptions are adapted. If they weren't, they wouldn't work. Condensing plot points and even characters into one another is part of that process, as is omitting stuff entirely, as is adding some things. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the people that ask these kinda questions. See also: the people who still fucking moan about the Lord of the Rings films because Gandalf's staff is 2 inches longer than it's meant to be. (Heh.)

W-wh-what? People complain about that kind of detail? I imagine they'd also complain about the omission of Tom Bombadil *shudders.*

Nah, I was being facetious. They do moan an awful lot about stuff like the Mouth of Sauron and whatnot.