Game of Thrones [Potential Book Spoilers]

Are there actually people who think Show!Cersei is 'misunderstood' and sympathetic???

I can't see her as anything less than a villain. She's awful and there are some moments where I sympathize with her (Joffery's death because that's just awful and her literal Walk of Shame), but I still think of her as a villain above all else. Sympathize with and Sympathetic are two different things.

TBH, the more moments I have that I sympathize with her (or otherwise see her as the lesser of some evils), the more complicated my feelings get for the show and I feel like, of all things, that's a mark of some good writing. I may hate Cersei and want her to die for... well, we'd be here all day if I listed them all, but I still do want to see her revenge on the High Sparrow because that was an awful experience. I hate the High Sparrow (as in, a good villain hate) and want to see his downfall and Cersei is the best in place to destroy him or at least built up as such.

As soon as she gets her revenge, I'll be satisfied and I want her dead soon after... Preferably in the process of.

edited 1st Oct '15 12:15:38 AM by InkDagger

Not at all. That is mistaken for pragmatism, when what it is is "failure of imagination". Even pragmatists have some concept or goal they want to reach towards.

You look at the best literary adaptations, Orson Welles' The Trial or his Chimes at Midnight and its visually and formally faithful to the text. In the case of the latter film, Welles combines five Shakespeare plays into one, makes the supporting character into the hero and he does it without changing any lines in the text. There's also The Age of Innocence by Scorsese. I suppose this can't be compared to ASOIAF and maybe that's true, but a faithful and visually exciting adaptation can be done and achieved. In television you have Rainer Werner Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz a 14 episode miniseries that doesn't betray the text either. In each adaptation there are pragmatic choices, Welles for instance made his movie on a budget lower than the cheapest Game of Thrones episode, but there's no failure of imagination.

You mean the books, because that kind of historical critique is not there in the TV Show, which is more Renfaire than about the true Middle Ages. The books are written for the audience who will eventually read up about the Capetians and Plantagenets because the idea that these characters are based on historical figures makes the books exciting as fantasy and history.

Ultimately its not about being different for the sake of being different. It's about getting the spirit of the books right, and not compromising the core ideas. I don't think the showrunners entirely understood that.

I will be honest, Kafka's Metamorphosis bore me to death so I never tried to read the Trial, but the thing is - there is no need for budget in Kafka's work if you are thinking about a screen adaptation (except the roach CGI for the Metamorphosis, I guess). All mostly happens in one place, with a few characters. It's easier to be pragmatic when you don't have real money issues. And it is timeless, you could very much have it made with modern clothes and scenery and it would still work (and I think it is kind of the same for Shakespeare, who also is rather cheap to film since it is a theater piece, it is supposed to take place in few different locations).

GOT meanwhile has a hundred problems with its era, its locations, its costumes, its fantastic elements, all those reasons that make people start to watch the show. The logistics are impossible to compare. That's why they have to be pragmatic.

I tend to agree more with your statement about respecting the spirit of the book...but unlike Kafka, I think it is actually harder to know what the spirit is, and different people may read different things or consider different elements to be of paramount importance. There weren't hundreds of theses on the meaning of Westeros' world when D&D started (unlike analyses of Kafka's or Shakespeare's works), so they probably mostly ran with what they thought of the books. And since ASOIAF is not a literary essay, I'm not even sure GRRM really tries to convey a specific message, it strikes me more as an homage to medieval history with fantastical elements, I don't think there is supposed to be an aesop of any kind.

In my opinion, there is no message in ASOIAF and GOT. It is pure entertainment - like many great fantasy series (Locke Lamora comes to mind, it's my personal favorite), while I read that the Sword of Truth became infamous when it tried sending a message. Who lives or dies or wins or loses does not matter because there will be no aesop in the end - the only one I can think of is "don't be too naive", thanks to Ned & Robb Stark, and this is kept in both versions. So if things change - it means the entertainment is delivered through a different way. Talking about a "spirit" of GRRM's book is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, it's not trying to make a point.

Actually, the message of Robb's demise might be that real war does not care about how heroic you are, and that you can die at any moment despite being morally outstanding or looking like a hero. Very minor events can have dramatic consequences. Which means that when D&D kill major characters that aren't supposed to die (or save others), they actually enforce that idea that randomness is important in history.

edited 1st Oct '15 3:53:33 AM by Julep

@Julian- I'm kind of confused as to what you are citing as failure of imagination, because it really sounds like you are talking about things like grand sets and (as you explicitly mention) tons of characters that are very much tied to budget.

I mean for example, there is a philosophical difference in Martin's literal behemoth of an Iron Throne and the show's Expecting Someone Taller version, but it would also be super cost prohibitive to create or CGI something that looked like Martin's version and honestly I think it would detract from scenes.

And I think your comparisons are bit off because those are adaptions of works that don't really call for a large budget (and actually might be harmed by one).

As a contrast to Game of Thrones, I would say that I think Wolf Hall is better/more faithful to the work it adapts, but it also has a way smaller scale than ASOIAF. Not to mention that like GOT it underplays the lavish costuming.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is interesting to me because I love the book and didn't really care for the first couple of episodes of the show- I felt it was sort of missing something. But that's why I stopped watching it. Rather than continuing to watch it and complaining online with every episode how bad it was and claiming its producers are terrible people.

edited 1st Oct '15 9:17:41 AM by Hodor2

Since the beginning of film history, people have always used budgets as an excuse for poor storytelling. The excuse never flies.

My point is that they spend a lot of money and go out of the way to manufacture fight scenes and stuff. Even in a limited budget you have to prioritize, you have to think about aesthetic and overall structure. I don't see that in the show's latter two seasons. I see a show obsessed with its precious Season 9 closing surprise/climax, its reputation for being shocking, and so they derail and ride roughshod over characters to produce these elements. I mean think of how the budget for the Dorne shoot, including footage of a Unesco world heritage sight and so on could have gone virtually anywhere else. Why bring Dorne and give us that? You could have done the Dorne of the books, one or two sets, some exterior shots and scenes of characters in room, much like King's Landing, it would have been cheaper and simpler.

What purpose did Winterfell serve in the end of this season since Stannis quest is a joke at the end, and the whole Northern stuff is next year anyway. And even Brienne's quest is a pointless joke, it's basic spinning the wheels stuff. The only real plot purpose it served was for Sansa to get raped, stuff which did not happen in the books and doesn't even work as characterization or basic logic.

The best seasons of Game of Thrones and the best moments and the best scenes are the ones most faithful to the books.

Hahahahaha.

Thanks George, you're a doll.

It's funny- I had thought that might have been one of those fake quotes of him (usually they are tweets though rather than blog posts).

Checking it out, it is an actual post by him, but sure enough, the person who posted that truncated his comment for quote-mining effect (presumably to make his comment seem like an implied criticism of the show).

edited 1st Oct '15 1:01:22 PM by Hodor2

I don't thing GRRM is as pleased with the show now as he was a couple of years ago. Sure, he's still involved with it, but he has expressed disappointment at certain changes/liberties the show has taken. He wouldn't be able to outright bash the show while it's still on the air, but I don't doubt that he has actual criticisms of the show based on stuff from last season and such.

Another amazing comment that he made in response to a fan who was excited about seeing show!Trystane.

edited 1st Oct '15 1:06:08 PM by higherbrainpattern

I'm sure he does. Hell, I didn't like last season as much as previous ones and I think that is not a controversial opinion (although the record, the ratings were still good and it was highly critically rated).

However, I find it immensely stupid how some fans think he secretly hates the show and like to twist comments by him to bear that out. I think the worst is the people who believe in this idea of him lying to D&D about future plot points in order to undermine the show. Which seems particularly stupid because the same people rage against the show when it departs from the books.

That actually kind of proves my point. It is a pretty random comment by the poster, which would explain Martin's response. I think you really have to want to read into as criticism of the show to see it as such.

edited 1st Oct '15 1:11:37 PM by Hodor2

A lot of "critical acclaim" is subjective, from what I've seen, but whatever.

Incidentally, that is a related peeve. It's like the same people who will point to negative reviews and drops in ratings will say that popularity and critical praise don't matter when they are favorable toward the show.

When a lot of your appeal comes from the fact that you are a fantasy series that does not look cheap, you can't really ignore the budget issues. That's exactly like saying "Avatar could cost less if more of it happened inside the laboratory and we saw less of the Na'vis".

If Dorne, which is supposed to be an exotic area of Westeros, is seen through two rooms of Doran's palace, it will look cheap. And the majority of the viewers that did not read the books will be able to comment on it.

All of your comments come down to "what if GOT was made with people that A)did not need to get their money back and B)did not have to worry about the rules of seasonal broadcast on an American network". They do and they do because the world works like that. The "Episode 9" issue you criticize is kind of necessary for example: if your highpoint of S4 was Joffrey dying in Ep 2, the remaining of the season would be a complete letdown and people would not want to watch the next season - again, the vast majority of people who did not read the books.

Anyway, your statement about "the best scenes being the ones faithful" is wrong. Either you talk about the "big" scenes - and I can mention the Battle beyond the wall - or you prefer to talk about the quieter ones - and I can mention Oberyn/Tyrion, Varys/LF or many other examples.

edited 1st Oct '15 2:22:01 PM by Julep

Hardhome was great. Even the scenes in Meereen.

I actually never get tired of Tyrion sassing peoe who want him dead

The choice of location was one of many things that hurt Dorne but I can't really blame that choice- I mean it seems like a great idea in theory to be able to film at the real location that the fantasy equivalent is drawing from.

For what it's worth, here are some of my peeves at show departures:

• So, Martin is really good at logistics of geography and troop movements. I don't blame the show for not being good at those things, but I thought it was really glaring the Offscreen Teleportation Littlefigner does in Season 5. His jetpacking previously didn't really bother me, because there's time (on screen) in between appearances, but this time didn't have that handwave. Similarly, while I defend the burning of Shireen (and think Stannis will do so in the books) as being well written, there definitely needed to be some showing and not telling of Stannis losing.

• One thing that bugged me with Karl's fight with Jon as well as Bronn's training Jaime- the way in which the show seems to really buy into the idea that a Combat Pragmatist will always win. I mean its one with with Brienne/Dunk to resort to brute force to win or for Bronn to defeat the honorable but less skilled Vardis, but willingness to kick your opponent in the balls is not a guarantee for victory. If it was, Hot Pie would be the greatest warrior in Westeros.

• So about Arya and to a greater extent Sansa's season 5 stories compared with the books, the book storylines have this element I like wherein their circumstances are comparably cozy even though both characters are somewhat degrading morally. In contrast, Arya's training with the Faceless Men is a lot harsher in the show (although I kind of thought it works on its own) and Sansa...

• With Jon, although I tend to think the mutineers in the books were unjustified and motivated by hatred of the Wildings, there's a big difference between Bowen stabbing Jon with tears in his eyes and the show's take wherein the mutineers lure Jon out and kill him- it has a sort of Red Wedding-style cruelty to it. As with Arya in season 5, I like it in itself, but it is diametrically opposed to the book's presentation.

• With Dorne, it was bad. I think it would have been a lot better had Trystane been revealed as Aegon/we'd been given some indication of Doran having a master plan.

edited 1st Oct '15 2:35:07 PM by Hodor2

I just plain don't like their takes on certain characters like Stannis, Sansa, Brienne, Tyrion, Jaime, Samwell, Ramsay, and Jon.

Stannis- Ambitious in the show and is the kinda guy that needs to be talked out of sacrificing a child to the flames rather than the guy needs to be talked into doing it

Sansa- "Do you think I can invite my family to the wedding? : )" also now a victim of rape. And she sometimes gets negative character growth.

Brienne- Brutish and always being a dick to Pod. Ice queen.

Ramsay- Villain Sue

Tyrion- Mary Sue

Jaime- Kin-slaying rapist.

Samwell- Show-boat that talks about what a man is and tells the alad that he fucked Gilly and will continue to fuck her.

Jon- He knows where to put it. Also stripped off of his most interestic characteristics.

Also Bloodraven is some guy sitting in a tree.

And Asha lost all her humor and is now named Yara.

edited 1st Oct '15 3:43:54 PM by MadSkillz

I hate Saint Tyrion.

Saint Tyrion is awful.

edited 1st Oct '15 4:05:04 PM by doineedaname

Of all those examples, only Sansa really bothers me.

I actually like Stannis' evolution in the show. I think he is more realistic than his book counterpart, since you need to be ambitious to be a major actor in a succession war. If you are not doing anything out of personal interest, you just never climb to the top, history proved that time and time again - so show Stannis is very interesting as a man who tries to uphold some kind of standards despite those being constantly challenged by his situation, but in the end goes off the deep end because he was fundamentally ambitious but could never admit it.

Jaime's villainy is kind of necessary because in the books, he has a Jerkass Façade while growing mostly through internal monologues. You can't show that on TV unless you spend a loooot of time focusing on such a character. So, instead of growing progressively, he relapses (hard).

As for Tyrion I really like him. It's not like the show is full of characters that are both witty and fundamentally decent, so he gets a niche. If everyone was nice his level in kindness would be annoying but it is far from that so he is refreshing. Also, I dislike the misuse of the term "Mary Sue" when what people mean is "Creator's Pet".

edited 1st Oct '15 4:14:18 PM by Julep

Having not read the books (yet) but being familiar enough with the content surrounding characters I like, I too enjoyed Show!Stannis for a good while up until Shireen's burning. He's a Tragic Hero and a very classical one at that, and is still a badass. I think that it's just the subtlety of Stephen Dillane's acting combined with how Out of Focus he was for most of the series that does him the real disservice. Unlike Tyrion or Jon or Dany - they don't linger on Stannis long enough to really let his angst and hardships sink in. He's always just that guy in the background that you're like "Oh yeah, forgot he's important..."

The few moments they do give Stannis a sympathetic moment, it's just so subtle that I think the average viewer will miss it. I'm always reminded of the scene after he's had Renly killed and is moving his army into his brother's camp, and he's all "Most of these lords should consider themselves lucky I don't have them hanged. Hard truths cut both ways" or whatever - and the camera just lingers on him looking really depressed and lonely but it's so small and quiet that it's possible to miss it.

Unfortunately they waited until last season to start spelling his inner turmoil out for the viewer with the Shireen hug scene and stuff, and by that point he was doomed so it didn't even matter.

But even so, Show!Stannis is still an interesting and cool character in his own right, it's just that the more clear-cut protagonists were given the spotlight to highlight their angst and character while his was left in the shadows until near his end.

So Tyrion dosent rape and he is saint? wow, what low standar we have here.

I think Tyrion get spared the most unpleanse part of his chararterization because the show is already to dark(hell I giving myself to despair in the books) and with Stannis out and Jon being stab we only have Tyrion and Sam.

Brienne and Davos in the show.

I think Show! Stannis can be an interesting character in his own right, but he isn't Stannis to me. And there is this feeling that the producers don't get Stannis. And it borders on Ron the Death Eater at times as his only redeeming trait in the show is his love for his daughter which he promptly throws away for a little good weather.

@Julep No Tyrion is a Sue because he's almost always in the right and justified. His flaws are minor at best.

Well if they brought in Stoneheart, hadn't raped Sansa, didn't kill Mance and didn't have Stannis burn Shireen for a little good weather as well as bringing in the Northern Lords, the show would've been lighter.

edited 3rd Oct '15 4:03:11 PM by MadSkillz

so instead of having a basically decent human being along their existing characters, they should invoke Chandler's Law on a show already struggling with Loads And Loads Of Characters. That always works out well

Also a lack of fatal flaws a Mary Sue doesn't make. Otherwise everyone who doesn't die violently is a sue.

Tyrion is a drunkard, a whoremonger, and now a murder, ALL of which traits are exhibited on-screen and their consequences explored. By ANY metric, he's already an incredibly dark character

edited 3rd Oct '15 4:52:52 PM by blkwhtrbbt

Although no one seems to have ST Is ever.

"Otherwise everyone who doesn't die violently is a sue. "

Wait, what?

Anyways his murders are justified by the story. Self-defense and retribution for attempted murder.

Him being a drunk isn't really explored and it's played for laughs at times.

So there's the whoremonger part but he apparently quit that.

Unwillingly