A lot of the complaints this season isn't because they went out and did their own thing, its because what they did makes no sense and made it worse. What we could of had for Arya and Jon would have made for better television now and in the future and it money isn't even an issue. They didn't change things to save money they did it to enhance or enlarge roles for characters whose times just haven't come yet. Looking at you Talisa and Ygritte. And the biggest problem is that characters like Talisa and Ros were given their expanded roles just so season 2 could meet the sex quota HBO demands.
We know the show is an adaptation and isn't going to be a word-for-word translation of the book for TV.
That hasn't happened. There have been plenty of discussions on acting, pacing, budget, special effects, music, etc. etc. Otherwise it's only been in reference to complaints that basically *are* boiling down to 'it's not the book', usually under the guise of 'butchered characters' or 'good television', as though simply using the book version of the character or the dialogue that was printed in a certain chapter somehow means everything else that makes television then falls into place.It's really annoying when someone always uses "IT'S NOT THE BOOK" as a rebuttal to everything.
Sure, stuff could happen in future seasons, but for discussion sake we can only consider what is already shown.
If we were to always think about what could happen in the future, we may as well never have any discussion beyond "I like this episode". And that would be terribly boring.
I keep seeing that LOST thread reference but as someone who didn't watch that show and not being aware of any adaptation, what happened there?
The morning after finale of the second season of Game of Thrones, I called up Bryan Cogman, the show’s story editor. We’d spoken earlier in the year about the third episode of the season, which Bryan wrote. This time, we talked about the full arc of the season, the emergence of important new characters who don’t appear in the novels, race and gender in the show, and the tension between staying true to George R.R. Martin’s sprawling series while adapting it for an entirely different medium.
Can someone explain the whole Dagmer thing to me? Why did they change that? Where could the story possibly go with that?Is there gonna be no Bolton bastard in the series?
WiC.net says goodbye to Jaqen Hghar, Doreah, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Qhorin Halfhand, and Pyat Pree.The season finale of Game of Thrones lived up to its title, Valar Morghulis. All men must die is a fitting theme for an episode that sees us saying goodbye to five supporting cast members, though in this case, its not all men.
- WiC.net: Curtain Call: Valar MorghulisWiC.net says goodbye to Jaqen Hghar, Doreah, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Qhorin Halfhand, and Pyat Pree.
How did they forgot Maester Luwin?
If I started reading from the third book, would I understand the story only having seen the show?
If I started reading from the third book, would I understand the story only having seen the show?
No, it's really best to start from the beginning.
Yeah, but I'd be really annoyed by going back through the same story.
Yeah, but I'd be really annoyed by going back through the same story.
Thats a David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss] special. She doesnt even exist in the books. Ros was originally Red Headed Whore Number 1 in the pilot. In the very original [draft], Tyrion was in a brothel in Kings Landing as a way to introduce him and get a little download of information about Jon Arryn [the former Hand of the King who dies prior to the events fo the novel and the show]. For various budgetary reasons in the pilot, we chouldnt shoot Kings Landing at all or have any Kings Landing sets, so what you ended up seeing where Tyrion has skipped out on the royal procession and tries to find Winterfells brothel Ros the whore kind of emerged from that
With season 2, theres a character in the book named Alyaya, who we didnt end up keeping. We knew that Ros would serve that function in the latter part of the season where Cersei thinks shes caught Tyrions girlfriend but actually has caught Ros and doesnt know who she is. We had that in place its funny, its one of those things that kind of happened by accident. Youre finding different ways as youre plotting the season to examine different traits and characters. Theres a throwaway line in the second book where Tyrion says Oh, we should hire some whores for Joffrey, maybe that would let him calm down a bit. And we thought, we have to see that scene. And what ended up emerging was that horrific, as horrific as anything in the show, scene where Ros and Daisy are made to abuse each other for Joffreys sick jollies. And then, the other thing that we sort of built into the show was the rivalry between Littlefinger and Varys Ros seemed to be the perfect person for Varys to have an insider in Littlefingers company she came to Littlefingers, trusted him, thought she had a rapport, and sort of had a rude awakening about who she is, and who she is in Littlefingers eyes.
If I started reading from the third book, would I understand the story only having seen the show?
If I started reading from the third book, would I understand the story only having seen the show?
The first season is pretty much the first book, but with a lot of great details missing plus other awesome stuff like the wolves actually mattering and characters who become important later like donal noye. The second season omits a lot of the second book, and most of the great parts at that. At the very least you will have to start with a clash of kings. And really the books are a lot better than the show anyway so why not get the full experience?
Not having read the books, every change I've heard of I'm glad for. Like Syrio having Mr.Satan hair.
He may have better (or any) hair in the show, but the fight between Syrio and the Lannister guards is 1000 times better in the book.
I doubt that very much. The production is a huge part of the appeal of Game of Thrones to me. Being able to see the different locations, hear the different accents, etc is really central to my enjoyment.
I really only want to get the story because I hate waiting, so I'd just like a straight answer rather than that old "book was better" crap. It seems like the consensus is to start from book 2.
If I started reading from the third book, would I understand the story only having seen the show?
Only one guy said that, but if you don't want to listen, whatever, your loss.
Didn't you also say that?
Didn't you also say that?
My favorite parts of the books have always been the history and world building of Westeros. The stories about the legendary knights and battles from the past that aren't even mentioned in the tv show. I really think it's worth reading the entire series just for the incredible detail that grrm puts into the history and legends of the world. It's great stuff that makes the world feel a lot richer and more epic than it is presented in the tv series.Well, I'm moving on monday so I think I'll buy the third girl with the dragon tattoo book this weekend then use next week to read the soiaf books. It looks like it's cheaper to get 1-4 as a bundle and 5 then 2-5 separately. Who knows, maybe I'll read the first book at some point.
Start from the second book, you will be OK
You can safely skip a Game of Thrones, but you can't safely skip a Clash of Kings to the point at which certain parts of the story will literally be incomprehensible to you if you skip it.
I doubt that very much. The production is a huge part of the appeal of Game of Thrones to me. Being able to see the different locations, hear the different accents, etc is really central to my enjoyment.
I really only want to get the story because I hate waiting and I have a week to kill, so I'd just like a straight answer rather than that old "book was better" crap. It seems like the consensus is to start from book 2.
Don't skip the first book. I know you want to see what happens but you miss so much by doing that, even if the first season was fairly accurate.
http://booksaremyhome.tumblr.com/post/10643223607/my-favourite-game-of-thrones-scene
Don't skip the first book. I know you want to see what happens but you miss so much by doing that, even if the first season was fairly accurate.
http://booksaremyhome.tumblr.com/post/10643223607/my-favourite-game-of-thrones-scene
"What is a weekend?" got me too. So did House House's "It's never Lupus."I lolled hard at the house crawley one.
Actually I think I may read them again. I was planning on rereading ADWD to see if i liked it better the second time through like AFFC, maybe I'll just do the whole series.
I doubt that very much. The production is a huge part of the appeal of Game of Thrones to me. Being able to see the different locations, hear the different accents, etc is really central to my enjoyment.
I really only want to get the story because I hate waiting and I have a week to kill, so I'd just like a straight answer rather than that old "book was better" crap. It seems like the consensus is to start from book 2.
Skipping a book because you've watched the TV season is like refusing to eat a delicious cheeseburger at a nice restaurant because you already know what it's like to eat a McDonald's cheeseburger.
Can someone explain the whole Dagmer thing to me? Why did they change that? Where could the story possibly go with that?Is there gonna be no Bolton bastard in the series?
The business with Ramsay Snow, Roose Bolton's bastard, and his obnoxious servant Reek, is really complicated and would have been a nightmare to do justice to on screen. In the book, Ramsay hardly appears, but he's talked about a lot he kidnaps Lady Donella Hornwood, forces her to marry him, and then imprisons her. And when Ser Rodrik Cassel shows up to deal with him, he changes clothes with his servant Reek, so as to escape. Later, still pretending to be the servant Reek, Ramsay Snow joins up with Theon, and it's "Reek" who comes up with the plan to kill the miller's sons and pass them off as Bran and Rickon. Eventually, Theon sends "Reek" to get help, and Ramsay returns with a small army. He pretends to join forces with Ser Rodrik, then betrays him. And later, once he's rejoined Theon, he betrays Theon as well. It's a very complicated story that's mostly told second hand, and the notion of having a character we've never met in disguise as another character we've never met could have been impossible to portray on screen. Given that Ramsay is mentioned often but not seen in season two, there's no doubt we'll meet him in season three.
Jon: I think Jon's storyline BEGAN really well, but the way this finale played out was bad, simply put. Jon wasn't supposed to kill Qhorin in anger, it was supposed to be a clever ploy and something that is really hard for him. Now it seems like he killed Qhorin in blind rage, which is so, so wrong.
Maybe it's because I read the books, but I didn't get that at all. It was very compressed, but I still got the sense that Jon did what had to be done (as Qhorin told him in a previous episode) to get in with the Wildlings.
What did the other non-book thread think about it? Or impressions in general on the internet? Is it popular opinion that he killed Qhorin out of anger?
What did the other non-book thread think about it? Or impressions in general on the internet? Is it popular opinion that he killed Qhorin out of anger?