Game of thrones: why is it so WRONG.?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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.)

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.*

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.

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?

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.

Nouw:

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.

thebobmaster:

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.

I don't really buy that logic. While cramming a 900 page book into a single movie might be a stretch, Game of Thrones is seeking to the same with nine hours. Considering how much of the length of any book is given to description that can be presented at a glance to a viewer (e.g. what a dining hall looks like) assuming that nine hours is insufficient for the purpose is silly.

They have the run time to reflect what happened in the book and only make alterations they think necessary for the show (budget concerns, clarity, etc). I don't really think the OP's complaints are an issue resulting from the need to abridge so much as it is the common problem with such media crossovers when one person's vision for the story is different from someone else's.

SecretNegative:
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.

To be fair, almost all of the changes he's suggested making are relatively minor changes to dialogue. Other's are additional/alternative scenes which would not be particularly hard to film or change.

I LOVE the show, I haven't watched season 3 yet becuase I'm rewatching seasons 1 and 2, but some of the suggestions the OP suggests sound tantalizing! I haven't read the books (But will... when they're all released), but I can see how some things would be irksome. For the most part, I'm appreciative of what the show is.

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.)

Your ENTIRE point is completely useless because you haven't read what he said. His problem appears to be less of condensing anything and more of relatively simple dialogue choices and screenplay. IF his suggestions are true (I also haven't read the books; I plan on it when the last one comes out), I can see why he'd complain. Perhaps it is not the gravity of the "errors" within the show, but rather the solution to these "errors" is so outragiously simple it's ridiculous that they didn't choose to strengthen the story telling by taking certain (again, relatively small) elements straight from the book. I can see how this could aggrevate someone who read the books first. Some of these are fairly large, too, changing the persona's of characters from strong, well crafted warriors/politicians to mediocre whiners who feel incapable of accomplishing anything. And all that would be needed to change this is a few simple words.

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.

The two characterize Robb differently. The book's emphasize on begrudging and blaming him for his choice and are designed to add a bit of irony and conflict with his mother and the camp. The TV show is designed to inflate Robb's sense of worth in the eye's of the audience.

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.

Unfortunately that's the only reason why the stories are interesting. Let a character live too long and it starts to look like plot armor, which defeats the entire theme of all of the books.

towards the end of the last book (5th that is) i felt like martin didnt really know what he's doing anymore. im convinced the story wont end with the 7th book because martin just keeps adding characters and sub-plots without working towards anything in particular. i offcourse might be wrong, but i think that if he is going to end it in 2 more books it will feel like a rushed ending.
so i hope im wrong.

OT: i agree that the differences you mention could easily have been fixed although i do like the arya story in the show.

Honestly, the biggest changes I see to between the book and the movie tend to occur due to how they show the characters. The books rely a lot on inner thoughts to show how people think, and what they think of other people. None of which works in a more visual medium. Combine the limits on how much tie you have to show some things, and you'll see a bit more on why things are changed so much.

Take, for example, Arya's stay in Harrenhal. Very difficult to show off on TV, as we don't have access to her thoughts, combine that with her tasks being fairly monotonous and time consuming and it's no surprise to see much of that cut in the show. Instead, they add scenes with Tywin and Arya, showing off both characters in a time efficient manner, without resorting to simple telling.

Overall, it's interesting to watch and see how they handle the characters and really show off some of them. I do enjoy the shows, though I wish they had a bigger budget, just to see more. And I wouldn't mind a second Tyrion, he easily carries the show at times (and honestly, the books, at least in the beginning.)

Books series are always better than the TV versions, unless people know of a series where this isn't the case?

I know I couldn't even finish the first 15 mins of the TV series of the Sword of Truth series because of the differences between the books and the first few minutes of the pilot episode.

I really enjoy the TV series and I don't care if it's different from the books.

I judge both as their own piece of entertainment.

...when I first heard that the TV series was going to be a thing, my first thought was "How the f... not even HBO is going to depict Daenerys' story." And I was right. They just added enough years to her to make it less horribly brutal (also, so they could sell her as T&A, which I'm still a bit creeped out by. In my head she was still an abused little girl forced into brutal adulthood, not a mostly sheltered young adult forced into a brutal reality).

After that, the rest of the changes were expected. Still fun to watch, but I'd rather have The Winds of Winter.

Xeorm:
Honestly, the biggest changes I see to between the book and the movie tend to occur due to how they show the characters. The books rely a lot on inner thoughts to show how people think, and what they think of other people. None of which works in a more visual medium. Combine the limits on how much tie you have to show some things, and you'll see a bit more on why things are changed so much.

Take, for example, Arya's stay in Harrenhal. Very difficult to show off on TV, as we don't have access to her thoughts, combine that with her tasks being fairly monotonous and time consuming and it's no surprise to see much of that cut in the show. Instead, they add scenes with Tywin and Arya, showing off both characters in a time efficient manner, without resorting to simple telling.

Overall, it's interesting to watch and see how they handle the characters and really show off some of them. I do enjoy the shows, though I wish they had a bigger budget, just to see more. And I wouldn't mind a second Tyrion, he easily carries the show at times (and honestly, the books, at least in the beginning.)

With good use of facial expressions you can hint at one someone's thinking (admittedly the actor for arya isn't rather bad, but anyhow) (and tywin is not supposed to smile. Plus, with tywin constantly in her pressense arya would be constantly reminded that he's a massive threat and should be a name given) The book version of harrenhall and the events before/after were far more interesting.

SecretNegative:
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.

This always bothers me when print is translated into film. The screen writers and directors always seem to want to somehow interject their own influence into the product. I view the original work as a history and the changes made as a sort of revisionism. To me it would be like if the director of Lincoln decided that it would be better if AL was actually leading the charge at Gettysburg. It's okay to leave things out, but never okay to change them in my opinion. Also I agree that the most egregious offense was Dany in Qarth.

ike42:

SecretNegative:
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.

This always bothers me when print is translated into film. The screen writers and directors always seem to want to somehow interject their own influence into the product. I view the original work as a history and the changes made as a sort of revisionism. To me it would be like if the director of Lincoln decided that it would be better if AL was actually leading the charge at Gettysburg. It's okay to leave things out, but never okay to change them in my opinion. Also I agree that the most egregious offense was Dany in Qarth.

You sure you've replied to the right post? because I don't agree with you in the slightest.

SecretNegative:
[quote="ike42" post="18.405709.16864110"][quote="SecretNegative" post="18.405709.16858348"]
You sure you've replied to the right post? because I don't agree with you in the slightest.

whoops, you're right. Must have clicked the wrong one somehow. Meant to reply to main thread, sorry.

Because Writers are the little Princesses of Moviemaking, who fancy themselves more important than anybody else in the whole process.
In the case of game of thrones you can tell that pretty well by listening to the commentary tracks on the DvD: Often times you hear writers talking about how they didn't like something in the books, so they changed it for the script.

Some of them seem to have the attitude, that writing for this series is more about promoting their craft and demonstrating their skills, rather than adapting the books to the screen.

I guess, I can understand that, since Writing is probably a tough job. But listening to that commentary track I can't shake the feeling that a lot of people on the writing stuff see Game of Thrones as a stepping stone for a bigger career... and you can't do that, by simply putting what George wrote into Dialogue-Form with Screenplay instructions.

All you guys complaining about the changes in the TV series do realise George RR Martin plays a major role in the shows plot development? Most changes are ran though George before they're written in, or are his ideas to begin with.

I disagree about Jon asking to go with Qhorin. In the books we were well aware by that point that Jon wanted to be a Ranger more than almost anything, but in the TV show we only got that one scene where he got pissed off because he was made a Steward instead. So the scene serves to remind the TV only audience that Jon wants to be a Ranger.

I'll put it this way: As an awesome Christmas present a few years back, my dad bought me the first five books. Then the TV show came to England... And turned out to be soft-core porn with a 75% cast of sexy teenagers and badly rendered baby wyverns which people keep calling dragons. And the whole "thirteen year old girl repeatedly raped by a warlord" thing became some kind of... sordid... fantasy... romance...? Nope. Fuck it. I'm waiting till the whole thing is over and done with. Maybe THEN I can read the Heldamn books and maybe THEN entertain thoughts of watching the show. I just want real, old school, 1980s "we can do whatever the fuck we want with this world" fantasy back. Not the war of the roses re written as an elder scrolls game! And I'm from fucking Sheffield and think Sean Bean is the don!

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.

I dunno, I like books 4 and 5 quite a bit (I'm assuming those are the ones you have a problem with). Jamie is now one of my favourite characters because of the PoV chapters we got of him in those books. Cersei is so much more interesting now and reading about her thought process was extremely entertaining for me. Danny was frustrating but having Barristan around sort of made up for that to me. The Greyjoy PoV started off fairly uninteresting but I think they grew to be much better as the books went on.
As for killing off characters:


The things that bothered me about the show have mostly already been said. I should point out that I do still like the show very much but some of the alterations are really unnecessary. I wish they could have shown some kind of flash back to the Tower of Joy with Ned reminiscing about it like he does in the books. That may prove to be one of the most important scenes in the entire story.
I wish they had done more with the House of the Undying. It foreshadows so many things in the books and much of that is absent in the show.
Lastly, as much as I liked Tywin and Arya's interactions, I think removing Bolton from that role was a mistake. We gained a lot of insight into his character that way and I think that's pretty important.

I'm leaning more in favor of the character developments on the show. Daenerys' arrogance and naivete seem to mesh well with her background and her experiences. She's spent most of her time with her brother, a self-absorbed idiot who filled her head with lies of how the people were awaiting the return of the Targaryens, and then with her husband, a brutal warrior from a society who rules by strength. She realizes she's the only person in the world who has birthed and raised dragons in a millenium (or whatever), and all of this before she's turned 25 or so (I'm guessing that's what her age in the show, maybe even younger). Does that sound like a likely source for wisdom and prudence? What are other teenagers like when they're given every advantage in life and believe they're super special?

Jon Snow? He's completely out of his element at the wall dealing with things he doesn't understand. Much like his father, he's been raised with a strict moral code, so the "whatever-it-takes-to-survive" attitude of the Night Watch puts him behind the curve. His moral code makes him seem naive and stupid to the necessity of the wilds.

Arya? I'm not sure why you believe she's a "weakling". She's easily the strongest of the Stark children (in a metaphorical sense). She's naive at times, as all the young characters are, but she's easily proven to be the most adaptable and the most cunning.

irishda:
I'm leaning more in favor of the character developments on the show. Daenerys' arrogance and naivete seem to mesh well with her background and her experiences. She's spent most of her time with her brother, a self-absorbed idiot who filled her head with lies of how the people were awaiting the return of the Targaryens, and then with her husband, a brutal warrior from a society who rules by strength. She realizes she's the only person in the world who has birthed and raised dragons in a millenium (or whatever), and all of this before she's turned 25 or so (I'm guessing that's what her age in the show, maybe even younger). Does that sound like a likely source for wisdom and prudence? What are other teenagers like when they're given every advantage in life and believe they're super special?

Jon Snow? He's completely out of his element at the wall dealing with things he doesn't understand. Much like his father, he's been raised with a strict moral code, so the "whatever-it-takes-to-survive" attitude of the Night Watch puts him behind the curve. His moral code makes him seem naive and stupid to the necessity of the wilds.

Arya? I'm not sure why you believe she's a "weakling". She's easily the strongest of the Stark children (in a metaphorical sense). She's naive at times, as all the young characters are, but she's easily proven to be the most adaptable and the most cunning.

But those characters are smarter in the books and do less stupid shit. But above all the books feel less 'cheesy'

Jon is far more loyal and honourable in the books. He's also rather solem, a bit like ned stark. he's the outcast. Yet the tv show portrays him as the happy social butterfly with the first few episodes and an idiot for every other.

Arya is harder (and colder). Granted she's stabed a stable boy and might have attacked a few soldiers in the tv show. But in the tv show it also appears that she's forgotten everything that syrio has taught her. Shit like challenging one of the leaders of an outlaw group and getting disarmed in a small stroke make her look stupid and pathetic. She's younger in the books yet a stronger character. She's actualy my favourite in the books, yet i loath here every scene in the tv series.

I can understand daenerys being 20 or so rather than 13. But at the same time there's scenes were she's pretty much a female viserys. She's supposed to be the prince that was promised and an amazing mother to her people. We're supposed to think that she'd make a better leader than joff//rob/balon/renly/stanis/drogo/tommen/tommen's cats yet she's fucking not. I think most people agree with me on quarth.

You can't have a discussion about the myriad changes in GoT from book to screen without some wag horning in and announcing that television is a visual medium and that some changes are necessary, as if that wasn't perfectly evident to anyone with 10 working brain cells. As annoying as things like 15 guys attacking King's Landing in the penultimate battle of Season 2 is, or a Dothraki horde of 30, it would be churlish to complain. Martin's works are primarily renowned for their dense world building and massive cast of characters, and there was no way they would ever have made the translation to screen completely intact. Before the HBO series was announced I always declared the series was basically unfilmable, and while I'm still not entirely convinced by the results I think they've done a decent job with extremely difficult material.

That said, the OP is 100% correct. There are a lot of deviations are are just confusing, if not straight up irritating. Jeyne Westerling into Talissa being a major example of this. This is where we get into changing things just to change them, and quite frankly almost without exception the changes have been abysmal. With the exception of a few strong scenes, the off-book material has been cringe-inducing with its awfulness, the nadir being Dany's atrocious season 2 arc. The Qarth chapters were never strong to begin with so you can forgive them for trying, but they took something weak and made it comically bad. This is a problem with deviating from acclaimed works of fiction. You're seldom going to one-up the original author.

El Danny:
All you guys complaining about the changes in the TV series do realise George RR Martin plays a major role in the shows plot development? Most changes are ran though George before they're written in, or are his ideas to begin with.

That's not saying much. If you paid attention to his blog leading up to the release of the series, you'd have noticed that Martin had a major case of the fanboys going on. He seems absolutely tickled pink to see his material up on the screen, and I suspect he's not too arsed one way or the other about changes. That's fine if he approves the changes...they're his books and ultimately it's his show as well...but that doesn't make them good changes.

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

The sharpest complaints about Jackson's changes to LOTR have always been about the characters. Like Far-From-The-Book-amir. I've never heard anyone carping about the length of Gandalf's staff, although...heh...that sounds kind of bad. Go go double entendre.

Innocent Flower:
I can understand daenerys being 20 or so rather than 13. But at the same time there's scenes were she's pretty much a female viserys. She's supposed to be the prince that was promised and an amazing mother to her people. We're supposed to think that she'd make a better leader than joff//rob/balon/renly/stanis/drogo/tommen/tommen's cats yet she's fucking not. I think most people agree with me on quarth.

I don't know where you are in the books, but there's been more than one sign that Daenerys has a touch of the old Targaryen madness. I'm not entirely sold on her ability to lead a nation.

The TV show is royally screwing up 2 of the most important characters (Jon Snow and Daenerys.) Instead of rising up as strong leaders, the TV show is making them incompetent in the extreme.

To a lesser extent, the TV is going in some odd directions with a lot of important secondary characters.

What the TV is doing right is Tyrion, Tywin, and Arya.

Maybe you should stop watching the show and just read the book. Whenever you create something for TV, you aren't going to be able to do it word for word. You also really shouldn't. There is nothing wrong with them taking a slightly different approach to things. If it was all word for word from the book, wouldn't that be kind of you know...boring? Since you already know everything that is going to happen. I think it is a lot better to just kind of make the show its own thing.

There is a reason I haven't gone out of my way to watch the TV series; I know those details would irritate me, far moreso than it really should.

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.

I figured the reason for that was to keep Robb in the show. IIRC, he is gone fighting in the Westerlands (where he meets jeyne) and isn't seen for almost the entirety of book 2, and I think in the show he is among the fan favorites. Changing his wife and the circumstances surrounding it was an easy way to keep him in the show for season 2.

I can't really recall, but did Robb even go to the Westerlands in the show?

First, for someone who claims to like the books better, you sure as shit didn't pay atention to proper nouns.
It's Jon Snow, not John Snow.
It's Daenerys, not Danaerys.
It's Harrenhal, not Harrenhall.
It's Qarth, not Qaurth.
It's Pyat Pree, not Pratt Prie.

Second, those are petty complaints. Daenerys' story in ACoK was fucking boring. The show added some much needed excitement to the whole thing. Arya's conversations with Tywin in the show were outstanding, and would have been impossible if they followed the original story exactly.

Third, who are you to complain? George R.R. Martin is executive producer (and occasional writer) on the show. If he didn't think the changes were for the better, he'd have blocked them.

BloatedGuppy:

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

The sharpest complaints about Jackson's changes to LOTR have always been about the characters. Like Far-From-The-Book-amir. I've never heard anyone carping about the length of Gandalf's staff, although...heh...that sounds kind of bad. Go go double entendre.

From what I've read it was a change for the worse. From what I've heard anyway, I thought he was okay in the film.

I fully see where you are coming from but it is a different medium and it occurs with every book to screen adaptation.
Having finished reading the original novel of "let the right one in" and then watching the film ("let me in" for the remake) I found many sceens that i felt key had been cut or only lightly touched on.

It is the interpretation of the text from a few people. Not every sceen chosen will please all people but it is what the shows creators think is the most important that they kept. If they put in every detail it would be to long so they have to chose what they think is the most important for a newcomer rather than a seasoned reader of the books so they can get a wider audience and in my opinion they did a damn good job.

Lets assume for a second they keep things word for the same as to what happens in the books, you would go mental bored out of your mind before too long. Massive fanatics would tune out as they'd know what was coming next to the letter. By having small changes (sometimes for budget admittedly) they manage to keep it fresh enough to keep you questioning enough as to what will happen.

Side note I am glad that Danerys is slowly becoming the equal judge she is meant to be instead of the spoilt brat she ain't.

Kakulukia:
Second, those are petty complaints. Daenerys' story in ACoK was fucking boring. The show added some much needed excitement to the whole thing. Arya's conversations with Tywin in the show were outstanding, and would have been impossible if they followed the original story exactly.

Qarth in the books was bad. Qarth in the show was fucking atrocious. The only exciting part was sitting on the edge of one's seat to see how bad the dialogue would be in the next segment. Arya's conversations with Tywin were fine, but the original Harrenhal sequences in the books were fantastic as well, it was a sidegrade at best.

Kakulukia:
Third, who are you to complain? George R.R. Martin is executive producer (and occasional writer) on the show. If he didn't think the changes were for the better, he'd have blocked them.

Since when does authorial approval remove all ability for viewers of the show to complain?

Nouw:
From what I've read it was a change for the worse. From what I've heard anyway, I thought he was okay in the film.

I thought so as well. His portrayal drove a friend of mine crazy though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked