Game of thrones: why is it so WRONG.?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I can totaly understand why some things aren't in the series when they were in the books. It would have been a total pain in the ass to cast every minor character from the first book and hold onto them well into the latter series. I can understand perfectly why we don't see every minor lord and knight in the tv series like we do in the books. But many of the changes are just... stupid.

My issue is dialogue and some of the plot divergences.

Take john snow for instance. In the books the halfhand asks him to come with him (for the wolf). In the tv series he awkwardly blurts a request to go with the half hand. This paints him as far more childish, unloyal and naive and there's no reason for this change. In the books danaerys isn't a spoilt bitch who isn't issuing threats all the time at the worst possible times.

In the books Jon,Arya, daenerys, bran,rickon theon and many others are far better characters. Admittedly i think Brienne of tarth is far less likeable in the books than she is in the tv series. but brienne is a rare exception (she really is a chore to read in the books).

The rest of my post is kind of a rant about how certain events are more stupid than the book versions.

Arya is completely different in the books.

In the tv series she's a weakling. Her stay in Harrenhall for instance is entirely different. in the tv series it's shallow. In the books there's a lot of character development for Arya in Harrenhall. The names she gives to Jaqen and the manner she gives them to jaqen allow for far less character development. The way she's taken to Harrenhall is different. The way she rarely sees Tywin is very important (how could you forget to say his name when he's right there like in the tv series?)

The big changes Danaerys' stay in qaurth is so horrifically wrong that it makes me want to punch her. It's not even that it's very different that bothers me. It just feels so... dumb and cliché.

Books- One of her handmaidens doesn't survive the red wastes. She sends out her bloodriders in three directions from an abandoned city, one of them comes back with pratt prie, xaro and the vieled woman who wish to take her and her dragons back to the city.

Tv series- She sends out bloodriders. One of them dies. another comes back telling of a city. When she gets to the city she begins making death threats. Then a guy cuts his hands to let her in.

Books- People offer her gifts, xaro (who's hinted at not being hetrosexual) wishes to marry her for her dragons, she is trying to buy ships. She's politely invited into the house of the undying with the promise of knowledge.

Tv- Xaro has a wonderful vault with nothing in it. He betrays her for dragons with the warlocks. Her dragons get taken, because dragons let themselves be taken. xaro's only prize for the betrayal is one of the handmaidens.

also in the books the Reeds arrive before theon arrives. They become good friends with bran and hide with him in the crypts during the sacking. None of this creepy bullshit that they seem to be doing in the tv series.

Ok.

Then you remember that TV is a visual medium that actually has budget constraints and thus is a lot of things need to be changed. Consider this: Martin's books aren't 100 % perfect, even as books. If you would traslate it word-to-word to the screen, well, it'd be extremely silly in a few places.

Game of Thrones is one of the most successfull critically acclaimed TV-Shows out there, beating other fantasy shows by a mile. I do actually trust that they're very competent and know what they're doing.

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

Innocent Flower:
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.

I can see where you are coming from, but at the same time, no adaptation is going to be perfect. To you, the changes to the characters make them more boring. To the people watching it...well, they seem to disagree, considering how highly rated the show is. I understand you not liking aspects of the show, and I respect that. But saying that they are doing it "wrong", when George R. R. Martin is directly involved with production, and therefore overseeing the final product, seems a bit disingenuous.

Again, I have my own issues with what I've seen for the series. The scene where Davos tries to kill Melisandre is done much better in the book, in my opinion. The way it is done in the series, it makes Stannis look like a jerk, and Davos like an idiot. I wouldn't say the way of the series is "wrong", though.

Also, you complain that the scene for Arya in Harrenhal is less developed. Well, considering they are stuffing a 900 page book into a season, there are going to be some things that are going to be less elaborate. Not as much as if they tried to make a movie, and not any major cuts, but they can't have everything be exactly like the books.

However, I definitely agree with the "Dany in Qarth" thing. The changes there seem to be pointless. Not saying it's wrong, just that I don't understand them.

I agree with the above points, but some changes seem utterly unnecessary.

For instance, why invent a new wife for Robb? What's wrong with Jayne Westerling? it would not have taken any more time to explain who she was than it did to have Robb meet this other woman. I can't even remember her name. As far as I can see the change serves little purpose at all. I'd e happy to be corrected on this, if anyone can see a reason.

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

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 image 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?

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.

The thing that bugged me the most was the fact that tywin and arya meet in Harrenhall.
They have done it in such a stupid way! They even state that he knows that Arya is from the North and that she is of noble blood and make him just let it be.
That goes against completely against the character of Tywin.

Spot1990:

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.

I assumed the same thing. Also, they had a greater focus on Theon than they did in the books (which I think was amazing, Theon's hubris and fall were some of my favourite parts of season 2). I think introducing two more characters and having to delve into Bran too much last season would weigh down the episodes too heavily.

That being said, I didn't like Dany's bitchyness, Robb's FLI or Arya's easy ride, so I'm hopeful that this season will stick closer to the books, which it looks like it may.

OP, I half agree with you.

It's not the change of locations, the removal of characters and change of dialogue that is disappointing. This is to be expected, budget constraints and TV can't be a word for word adaptation and it's great when you see them adapt the script to show stuff in a different 'tv' way.

.....but some (But Not All) of the key character development scenes are cut or altered potentially leading to key characters having a different personality from the book.

Arya and Jon Snow are quite worrying. Dany is a cause for concern in season3...hopefully they show some of her development in subsequent episodes some how.
However some of the development between Dany and Jorah may of happened earlier in season 2 when Dany snaps at him. I can't remember if that also happened in the second book or if they put it in their early. Something to think about.

Season 3-4 are not finished yet..so they may show Arya's character development a different way..maybe she kills someone else. lol

I'm towards the end of the 4th book, I think Xaro isn't important enough to complain about and the Reeds children can just become friends with Bran now. Timing isn't important as much as staying faithful to the characters in the book.

Hold back the season 3 complaints until the season is finished because they may show the character development at another time. I am concerned about Dany though.

Oranges and apples, people. It's just opinion. I for one don't think Arya's either version is inferior to the other. Emphasising her terror and will to just escape made her a bit more likable in the series. If you'd translate her directly from the books, she wouldn't be half as popular a character. In the books she's a borderline psychopath, but it works there because the book can convey her feelings of abandonment and thirst for vengeance in a way visual media can't.

I thought Dany's development was actually better in the second season than in the second book. [Spoiler] In the second book she practically achieves fuck-all, and just treads water for all her time in Qarth, save for the House of the Undying, which was undoubtedly way cooler in the book than in the series. But by the end of the second second season she's realized she can truly only trust herself, and the bit where she locks Xaro in the vault really made an impact on me. She evolved from a frightened girl to a ruthless khaleesi, and that worked.

I didn't mind the bit at Harrenhal in the series, in fact it was IMO better. It helped establish Tywin's character more efficiently, since in the books he doesn't get particular attention until Storm of Swords. And since the show practically prides itself on ambiguous characters, making Tywin more likable (let's face it, he's a dick in the books) works towards that goal.

Wadders:
I agree with the above points, but some changes seem utterly unnecessary.

For instance, why invent a new wife for Robb? What's wrong with Jayne Westerling? it would not have taken any more time to explain who she was than it did to have Robb meet this other woman. I can't even remember her name. As far as I can see the change serves little purpose at all. I'd e happy to be corrected on this, if anyone can see a reason.

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

I think the reason they didn't introduce the Reeds in the second season was because it would have added yet another subplot, where Bran learns all the stuff about being a warg and stuff. The main plot about Winterfell was Theon's arrival, and since the warg stuff is pretty dialogue heavy, it would have shifted focus quite drastically.

The thing I'm worried about right now is will they manage to pull the Reeds off decently? Them arriving out of nowhere felt kinda awkward in the series, but I hope they'll get sufficient attention soon.

Wadders:
For instance, why invent a new wife for Robb? What's wrong with Jayne Westerling? it would not have taken any more time to explain who she was than it did to have Robb meet this other woman. I can't even remember her name. As far as I can see the change serves little purpose at all. I'd e happy to be corrected on this, if anyone can see a reason.

The only reason I can think of is they were holding "Robb's wife" auditions, and this more ethnic woman walks in. "Well, visually she's not right for the part of a mainland Westeros nobility, but let's give her a shot", they say.

Imagine she turned out to be the best actress there by a wide margin, I can see them tweaking the role to fit her.

I actually liked the Arya/Tywin subplot in the second season. It was a good way to show that Arya was clever and that Tywin wasn't a complete dick to no development. The way he treats Tyrion already makes him bad enough. Besides, if nothing else, it made her time in Harrenhal less boring. I wish they did the part where the castle revolted, but meh.

The part that has bothered me the most was Robb getting married in front of the Seven. No. Wrong. Incorrect. Robb is King in the North and worships the Old Gods. I can't see the Great Jon or Mormonts following someone who just threw aside the Gods the Starks have worshiped for the last 7-8,000 years.

I view the Game of Thrones TV series in the same light as I do the Walking Dead TV show. Based upon, not a direct copy of the story presented in the novels or comic books.

In the third book she kills the ticker and his men in an inn with the hound, she reclaims needle during this fight. How can she fight them in the tv series if they're already dead?

This is my biggest issue with the TV series so far. Maybe they just didn't want to have to keep those actors around, but it was easily my favorite scene in A Storm of Swords. It's a defining moment for Arya, and it helps develop the relationship between her and Sandor, and to cut it out seems... awful. I dunno, maybe they'll somehow manage it anyway, but I can't see how, not without cheapening it somewhat.

Here's the thing ... Game of Thrones is a mediocre fantasy show at best. Be lucky it's this good. And be glad the show has Tyrion, because otherwise it's be below average.

Sean951:

The part that has bothered me the most was Robb getting married in front of the Seven. No. Wrong. Incorrect. Robb is King in the North and worships the Old Gods. I can't see the Great Jon or Mormonts following someone who just threw aside the Gods the Starks have worshiped for the last 7-8,000 years.

This hadn't occurred to me, but you're right.

Perhaps Robb is having a Southron ceremony for the sake of his wife?

OT: A great lot of the changes listed by the OP, I'm fine with. I don't care much that the Tickler is already dead; he's such a minor character. It doesn't change anything much thematically for the Reeds to be introduced after Theon.

The biggest difference is the chain of events in Qarth, with Pyat Pree. There were so many prophecies & hallucinations in the House of the Undying that were (understandably) cut. They should at least have shown the Undying, I think, and included one or two of the misdirections the House uses to throw Dany off.

Ronack:
Here's the thing ... Game of Thrones is a mediocre fantasy show at best. Be lucky it's this good. And be glad the show has Tyrion, because otherwise it's be below average.

Do you like/have you read the books?

Just curious if you dislike both, or just the show.

Personally I pretty much agree with you, the show is just average really. Tyrion pretty much steals it. Although most of the cast were pretty well chosen, the direction they have taken most characters is disappointing to say the least. Almost all of them come across as considerably less intelligent.

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.

I mean, how could they miss out this scene?

Johnny Impact:

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?

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?

I...wait, what?
The point you're trying to make here, is made terribly...I mean it's one thing when your comparing a direct book to movie like you did with Lord of the Rings. But the Avengers thing is based off the comics, the movie is the film adaptation of the comics not an adaptation of ancient mythology or Shelly's Frankenstein.

OT: The only thing I think is "wrong" about the show is when they interview the cast or various sites have people sitting and discussing the show. In both instances they talk about the character's disposition or what they think will happen to the character, etc. And the thing that drives me up the wall is that they treat it like it's some kind of huge mystery. But compared to other shows who are book adaptations Game of Thrones follows the books fairly closely, the plot isn't a mystery....so why?!

Johnny Impact:
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 image 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.

Legion:

Ronack:
Here's the thing ... Game of Thrones is a mediocre fantasy show at best. Be lucky it's this good. And be glad the show has Tyrion, because otherwise it's be below average.

Do you like/have you read the books?

Just curious if you dislike both, or just the show.

Personally I pretty much agree with you, the show is just average really. Tyrion pretty much steals it. Although most of the cast were pretty well chosen, the direction they have taken most characters is disappointing to say the least. Almost all of them come across as considerably less intelligent.

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.

Nah, I'm basing it off of a TV series only point of view. The fact that there's sooooo many families to consider, all of them having fantastical names, scared the bejebus out of me :lol:

Also, I agree that the cast is pretty well chosen though. Especially "King I want to strangle you with your own intestines, you spoiled little shit" ... I think that's his name. Might be mistaken.

Legion:

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'.

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.

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 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. :'(

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. :'(

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.

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.

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.

Spot1990:

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 :)

Wadders:

Spot1990:

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 :)

Maybe they could have. But season 1's plot was fairly straightforward. 2 introduced a lot of characters and a lot of plots. They might have wanted to wait until they could focus on it more without it being a distraction. Anyway, we're looking at it from different viewpoints. I've only read the first book, so I'm looking at how it works as a show, you're looking at how it works as an adaptation so I can totally see your frustration from adaptations of things I love. So I can't say you're wrong, I've been where you are before.

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.

SecretNegative:

Innocent Flower:
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.

Johnny Impact:

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.

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked