Game of Thrones - HBO part 2 - Part 4

[mr. peasant]

It was a joke, that's why I used a

Ah. My bad.

Never realised the different emoticons had names until now and that emoticon never really screamed 'sarcasm' for me. Sorry.

Ok, fine. But then why continue watching the show if you complain about it every week for being too similar to the books? Just seems like an immense waste of time. If you're going to stick through the show, at least finish up to ASOS.

I have and I do enjoy the show. But at the same time, I recognise where I feel the show has let itself down and what it could or should have done to be a better narrative (especially as a TV show independent from its source material; i.e. Marillion the singer's tongue snipping in the show doesn't suddenly turn him into a mute in future appearances in the book).

 

[PWN3R]

There are so many characters and ongoing storylines that I almost need a flow chart to keep track of it all. That is what I mean by convoluted. Yes, I guess that they all tie together somehow (though based on what I hear, it has yet to happen). But it has reached the point where I feel like I am reading several short stories rather than one streamlined one.

J.K. Rowling built a world with Harry Potter. Tolkein built a world with The Hobbit and LOTR. But they never sacrificed the story at hand to build a world. Instead they tied it all together in a way that advances the plot of the story being told. I never get this vibe from GRRM's writing. Sometimes it even feels like GRRM realizes he has done this, gotten off track and made unimportant characters/plots in the name of padding the mythology...so he responds by just killing them off for the hell of it.

I kind of both disagree and agree. Martin does wander off on random things that have no relation to anything important. Tolkien is clearly the better writer, but I distinctly remember his songs going on for pages in Fellowship. Just when you thought you were safe, here's another goddamn song for 2-3 pages.

The characters in ASOIAF are really simple to grasp when you look at the big picture of the North vs. South and all their differences. I don't know, maybe because I'm obsessed with the Houses and sigils.

I'm sad you don't enjoy it, but it's understandable.

 

[Matt]

He's exactly what Renly described. However, there should be some sense of honor and decency about him. A sense of tarnished nobility. Either the writers or actor have not brought that out. When I read the book, I pictured a young Patrick Stewart performing his version of MacBeth.

He's the only character--well him and Asha/Yara--whose disappointed me this season. I think if they had done a better job of introducing him, instead of waiting until episode 8 to finally give him some development, audiences may have connected to the character better for the show.

Honestly, I feel like Stannis is one of the worst characters in the book and show. He has such an annoying sense of self-righteous entitlement. He talks of honor but if he really had honor he would've ignored what he sees as his "birthright," and taken the hit for all of Westeros. The war would've been open and shut if he just supported Renly (who was the one that the people seemed to support). Renly may not have been next in line but the people wanted him. So Stannis is so entitled that he will expose the people of Westeros to a long, brutal war if it means getting his way. Such a sense of entitlement.

 

[Matt]

I kind of both disagree and agree. Martin does wander off on random things that have no relation to anything important. Tolkien is clearly the better writer, but I distinctly remember his songs going on for pages in Fellowship. Just when you thought you were safe, here's another goddamn song for 2-3 pages.

The characters in ASOIAF are really simple to grasp when you look at the big picture of the North vs. South and all their differences. I don't know, maybe because I'm obsessed with the Houses and sigils.

I'm sad you don't enjoy it, but it's understandable.

Yeah, Tolkein became a bit too obsessed with the mythology. It is what really prevents me from enjoying LOTR. It reads more like a history book. I'd say Rowling has almost perfected the art of world building through a streamlined story.

 

[mr. peasant]

I do enjoy how two posters who haven't read the books are not just going after the show, but dissecting what they view as the numerous problems in GRRM's writing and storytelling.

And I do enjoy how I have to frequently reiterate that I have read the book. <insert random emoticon>

Hey, I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but based off the movies I think Rowling is too exposition heavy and has too many side-characters she leaves undeveloped and kills off unsatisfyingly. All in all she should have rewritten....

It just doesn't work like that, in my opinion.

And they would be a valid criticism of the movies in and of itself, had it actually happen in the movies. Which it didn't since all the ones who died before the very final battle were central characters. At the end of the day, a book, TV show or movie has to stand on its own two feet and be good on its own merit.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd say Rowling is very mythology-obsessed too (again I haven't read her, but that seems to be the trend around here ).

The HP stories are seeped in holcruxes, deathly hallows, hidden secrets and the relationships of many supporting characters who have a habit of dying suddenly. I will say fantasy writers are so obsessed with world building, it can be hard to get into their writing. LOTR took me a long time to finish. The only other fantasy series I've rad is ASOIAF. And while I sped through the first three books, I still haven't picked up the fifth. There's just so much.

 

[Matt]

I'd say Rowling is very mythology-obsessed too (again I haven't read her, but that seems to be the trend around here ).

The HP stories are seeped in holcruxes, deathly hallows, hidden secrets and the relationships of many supporting characters who have a habit of dying suddenly. I will say fantasy writers are so obsessed with world building, it can be hard to get into their writing. LOTR took me a long time to finish. The only other fantasy series I've rad is ASOIAF. And while I sped through the first three books, I still haven't picked up the fifth. There's just so much.

Rowling definitely builds the world, but she does so through the main plot. Even as she world builds, she moves the story forward in a streamlined manner. GRRM doesn't seem to do that.

 

[DACrowe]

And I do enjoy how I have to frequently reiterate that I have read the book. <insert random emoticon>

whoops.

And they would be a valid criticism of the movies in and of itself, had it actually happen in the movies. Which it didn't since all the ones who died before the very final battle were central characters. At the end of the day, a book, TV show or movie has to stand on its own two feet and be good on its own merit.

Oh goodie, I can criticize the movies! (last one I promise).

The HP films , likely because it played out like this in the books, had a terrible tendency of killing off important characters off-screen. Remus, Tonks, one of the Weasley twins, Mad Eye Moody, etc. all died off screen. That is such terrible filmamaking it boggles my mind. I have no emotional reaction, because initially I'm like "When did that happen" and then I wonder do I care. Mad Eye Moody's was especially poor because it's mentioned in passing after a chase scene that could have used more tension where everyone seemed to live happily. Another thing is, most of those characters (at least in the films) have little to no development. Remus was a great character...in movie 3. Yet, somehow we're supposed to still care by movie 8 even though he's had about 8 lines since then. I didn't even know he and Tonks had a kid until Harry mentions it to ghost Remus. The twin who died was funny, but given I never knew his name beyond being one of the twins tells me he wasn't that developed.

So, the movies did have a problem of an overflow of characters and bad cinematic storytelling because of an overabundant need to follow the book. Yay, I got to be the critical one.

 

[Matt]

whoops.




Oh goodie, I can criticize the movies! (last one I promise).

The HP films , likely because it played out like this in the books, had a terrible tendency of killing off important characters off-screen. Remus, Tonks, one of the Weasley twins, Mad Eye Moody, etc. all died off screen. That is such terrible filmamaking it boggles my mind. I have no emotional reaction, because initially I'm like "When did that happen" and then I wonder do I care. Mad Eye Moody's was especially poor because it's mentioned in passing after a chase scene that could have used more tension where everyone seemed to live happily. Another thing is, most of those characters (at least in the films) have little to no development. Remus was a great character...in movie 3. Yet, somehow we're supposed to still care by movie 8 even though he's had about 8 lines since then. I didn't even know he and Tonks had a kid until Harry mentions it to ghost Remus. The twin who died was funny, but given I never knew his name beyond being one of the twins tells me he wasn't that developed.

So, the movies did have a problem of an overflow of characters and bad cinematic storytelling because of an overabundant need to follow the book. Yay, I got to be the critical one.

They actually do die off screen in the book because the story is told in the third person point of view of Harry, therefore we only witness the events that Harry is present for. Rowling did it to emphasize the fact that it is a war and people die in war. Harry can't be present for every death. In the films, I agree, they needed to show it. It is a different medium and they should've played by the rules of the medium.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well that's the thing, compared to say Tolkien or Rowling, GRRM does a vastly better job at making his characters seem human
To use the HP example the "bad guys" are simply that, bad. It's almost like these people are just inhuman creatures that the protagonists have to conquer and defeat, whereas with ASOIAF the "villains" are depicted as regular people with their own thoughts and dreams and loves and hates. Personally I think that's more interesting as reader.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Well that's the thing, compared to say Tolkien or Rowling, GRRM does a vastly better job at making his characters seem human
To use the HP example the "bad guys" are simply that, bad. It's almost like these people are just inhuman creatures that the protagonists have to conquer and defeat, whereas with ASOIAF the "villains" are depicted as regular people with their own thoughts and dreams and loves and hates. Personally I think that's more interesting as reader.

For the most part the villains are that way. But I thought she did a good job with The Malfoys, and Snape is still one of my favorite complex fictional characters out there.

 

[DACrowe]

I wouldn't call Snape a villain though. Rather, he's an anti-hero whose supposed to keep you guessing, however I knew from the first movie/book (did look at that one) that he's instantly a good guy pretending to be horrible. So, it's not really that much of a surprise.

Comparatively, when you tell people who've only read the first two books or seen the first two seasons that Jaime Lannister is one of the most interesting and sympathetic characters in the series they'll stare at you incredulously and say that's impossible. So, there is a difference there. Other than Joffrey/Cersei, there really aren't any villains per se in the series. Just a multitude of different points of view. We obviously identify with the Starks as we're introduced o them first and they're wronged simply because they tried to do the right thing, but that does not make them the only sympathetic characters in the series or story.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I do enjoy how two posters who haven't read the books are not just going after the show, but dissecting what they view as the numerous problems in GRRM's writing and storytelling.

Hey, I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but based off the movies I think Rowling is too exposition heavy and has too many side-characters she leaves undeveloped and kills off unsatisfyingly. All in all she should have rewritten....

It just doesn't work like that, in my opinion.

I could not agree with you more.

As to people saying the separate plot threads don't seem connected. Let me address that by saying, people don't know each other very well in this world. Stories intersect in the same building, in the same room, but because Arry might not know/recognize another POV character and his retinue in the scene you miss a lot. Reading such a scene from one POV might leave a character anonymous, but could be very important.

I also always send people back to read and figure out who all the spiders are. It's quite evident when you see how information is passed at times and where they are. I would say more but I don't wanna ruin it for the kids. But there's a reason why on every continent and island everyone is watching the war in Westeros. The flow of information is very important, and not just bawdy sailor talk, but the real details, the intelligence. There's a bit of an underlying spy story there.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I wouldn't call Snape a villain though. Rather, he's an anti-hero whose supposed to keep you guessing, however I knew from the first movie/book (did look at that one) that he's instantly a good guy pretending to be horrible. So, it's not really that much of a surprise.

Comparatively, when you tell people who've only read the first two books or seen the first two seasons that Jaime Lannister is one of the most interesting and sympathetic characters in the series they'll stare at you incredulously and say that's impossible. So, there is a difference there. Other than Joffrey/Cersei, there really aren't any villains per se in the series. Just a multitude of different points of view. We obviously identify with the Starks as we're introduced o them first and they're wronged simply because they tried to do the right thing, but that does not make them the only sympathetic characters in the series or story.

I hear ya man. I'm a Stannis guy all the way myself, because well, we all know Stannis is the stuff. House Baratheon all the way.

As for Jamie, heck yes he's a great hero.

Spoiler

In fact, when it finally dawns on people it will be one of the great heroic turnarounds ever. We have never seen the road to redemption in a hero drawn out so well over so much time. Usually in a movie the guy realizes the error of his way and then goes on a rampage, cue climax, movie over.

 

[Matt]

I could not agree with you more.

As to people saying the separate plot threads don't seem connected. Let me address that by saying, people don't know each other very well in this world. Stories intersect in the same building, in the same room, but because Arry might not know/recognize another POV character and his retinue in the scene you miss a lot. Reading such a scene from one POV might leave a character anonymous, but could be very important.

I also always send people back to read and figure out who all the spiders are. It's quite evident when you see how information is passed at times and where they are. I would say more but I don't wanna ruin it for the kids. But there's a reason why on every continent and island everyone is watching the war in Westeros. The flow of information is very important, and not just bawdy sailor talk, but the real details, the intelligence. There's a bit of an underlying spy story there.

I've read enough to have a feel for his writing style. You can disagree with my opinion but that makes it no less valid or accurate than yours. So you and Crowe can write it off as someone who hasn't read the books, but that is fairly snobbish.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

If you haven't read A Storm of Swords, then no, you have not read enough.

 

[Matt]

Of course I have. I don't need to read a whole series to determine whether or not I like an author's style.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Nope. You should read his best work before you completely write him off.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I've read enough to have a feel for his writing style. You can disagree with my opinion but that makes it no less valid or accurate than yours. So you and Crowe can write it off as someone who hasn't read the books, but that is fairly snobbish.

Edit your recponce Matt. I went back and spoilered something.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Nope. You should read his best work before you completely write him off.

I think Matt's point is that if a writer doesn't grab him by the first few books, he's not going to be interested in continuing to read. Which isn't a bad way to look at things. It's the writers job to keep you interested. And he might just not like the writing style. People have different tastes. It's not the end of the world.

Also, going back to DACrowe, I also felt Snape was good. But I wouldn't say he was "pretending" to be horrible. I genuinely think he enjoyed doing some of the more nasty things. That's the fun part of his character. And while there were a good amount of people who were always on the "Snape is good' train, there were also a fair amount of them convinced he was bad. There was tons of debate about it before the 7th book was released. So I would say JKR did a good enough job to get a pretty split opinion on him.

 

[Matt]

I think Matt's point is that if a writer doesn't grab him by the first few books, he's not going to be interested in continuing to read. Which isn't a bad way to look at things. It's the writers job to keep you interested. And he might just not like the writing style. People have different tastes. It's not the end of the world.

Bingo.

Also, going back to DACrowe, I also felt Snape was good. But I wouldn't say he was "pretending" to be horrible. I genuinely think he enjoyed doing some of the more nasty things. That's the fun part of his character. And while there were a good amount of people who were always on the "Snape is good' train, there were also a fair amount of them convinced he was bad. There was tons of debate about it before the 7th book was released. So I would say JKR did a good enough job to get a pretty split opinion on him.

The way I see it is, Snape is not a great guy. He was a petty and vile man who took pleasure in torturing a child for the sins of his father. That being said, he was on the heroic side of the war (the Order) and in that regard was a hero. He was a good man but not a nice man.

 

[flickchick85]

I've read enough to have a feel for his writing style. You can disagree with my opinion but that makes it no less valid or accurate than yours. So you and Crowe can write it off as someone who hasn't read the books, but that is fairly snobbish.

I agree that you're qualified to make judgements on his writing style, which never really changes and certainly can't be everyone's cup o' tea, but your other criticisms of his story sound comparable to watching the 1st and part of the 2nd seasons of Buffy and passing judgement on the whole series, even though any Buffy fan knows that portion of the show barely scratched the surface of the story, characters, etc.

I refuse to engage in the Martin Vs. Rowling debate. I think they both have their flaws, but they've both brilliantly told their stories in very different ways.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

From what I hear, the creators seem to think that the third book will be adapted into two seasons; in which case, there's plenty of time to introduce them then. In the mean time, the show can simply develop them as unseen characters.

As for it being strange to have the War of the Five Kings without the kings, I seem to recall Robb not really featuring all that much in book 2.

Have you read the third book? They could have 30 episodes and it would still be pushing it. It is far more dense then any of the books in the series, with nearly no fat.

It isn't AFFC where you could theoretically skip 75% of it and not miss a thing. Everything last thing is important.

They have also held off a specific character intros and such for next season already. Having to introduce Stannis and Mel, especially when they are relevant now? When you would miss out on Dragonstone? Never.

As to Robb, he is presence through his mother's eyes.

Not quite the same since Jaqen is [blackout]a minor character who's only relevant this book/season[/blackout]. By your own admission, Stannis and Melisandre are two of the most important characters in the series; thereby making it 'worth' locking them down. In fact, I don't see how what I'm suggesting makes the costs on the cast any more expensive than what they've currently got. In fact, it's potentially cheaper since they wouldn't have needed to cast or feature Davos until next season.

You would also be missing the entire idea behind why Mel couldn't be a Blackwater, which is important to the rest of the series. You had to establish her before Blackwater.

Can't remember anything specific about that blacked out word that happens in the next book would be difficult to do by introducing Stannis toward the end of season 2.


And honestly, I'm shocked by how casual, often and explicit some of the book fans are when discussing spoilers in this thread. I can only imagine a good number of people are turned off by this thread or are deliberately avoiding it so as not to risk seeing spoilers.

It isn't a book spoiler, but for the few fans who listen to cast interviews and read what the head writers say, it is pretty clear.

Carice, the actress playing Mel, gave the episodes she would be in an interview and the actor playing Davos mentioned how his season would end in a certain place, and it became pretty clear how the season is going to end for them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Nope. You should read his best work before you completely write him off.

GRRM is a terrible writer. Ok, not terrible, but far from great. Still, he is an above average storyteller who created a very engaging world and characters.

Well that's the thing, compared to say Tolkien or Rowling, GRRM does a vastly better job at making his characters seem human
To use the HP example the "bad guys" are simply that, bad. It's almost like these people are just inhuman creatures that the protagonists have to conquer and defeat, whereas with ASOIAF the "villains" are depicted as regular people with their own thoughts and dreams and loves and hates. Personally I think that's more interesting as reader.

No, I'd say GRRM is simply better at making his people look nasty. His villains and heroes are not nearly as complex as many try to make them out to be.

The problem is characters like Dany, where GRRM clearly has one intention, but has failed completely and left a whiny little trouble maker responsible for more needless death and distruction then Tywin Lannister.

As for JK. I submit HBP and DH as for why she is no better.

 

[Matt]

I agree that you're qualified to make judgements on his writing style, which never really changes and certainly can't be everyone's cup o' tea, but your other criticisms of his story sound comparable to watching the 1st and part of the 2nd seasons of Buffy and passing judgement on the whole series, even though any Buffy fan knows that portion of the show barely scratched the surface of the story, characters, etc.

I refuse to engage in the Martin Vs. Rowling debate. I think they both have their flaws, but they've both brilliantly told their stories in very different ways.

But just because an ending is good doesn't justify the rest being bad. If a show is terrible for 8 seasons and then has a tremendous twist ending, does that really justify saying that the entire show is great? No matter how good it becomes in later parts of the story, I'm not going to read a bunch of **** to get there.