11084 réponses à ce sujet

[casedawgz]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've never read the books, but I haven't had much issue following along except for remembering who a couple of people are - especially ones with brief, infrequent appearences and few lines. I still can't remember who that "honorable knight" who reads the King's will in the throne room is, for example.

But in terms of following the plot, I just have to fill in the blanks with logical assumptions. The events that went down at the end of the episode make sense without the details described above. I mean, what were we supposed to draw from that scene? Ned got played. Isn't that the gist?

Edit:  I mean, it's certainly no more difficult to follow than The Wire, which was downright punishing to viewers who missed single scenes.  All the Pieces Mattered, indeed.

If you don't get the sense they are skipping important scenes, not developing characters properly, and that there is more going on the background then I don't know what to tell you. But if you even read a summary of the books, you'd learn there is a lot more going on in the background and that we're missing a lot. Logical assumptions can't fill that in. At least not fill it in and be even close to how the story is actually told.

And because we're missing a lot we're not getting the full character development. Understanding the characters and their motivations. Some are just generic and don't tell the whole story or feel like they do.

Or we're getting scenes like the one with Littlefinger that slaps you in the face with what's about to happen instead of being more subtle and actually surprising people.

I'm just concerned that others could get this feeling, and be confused dropping ratings. I also don't think they have to depart from the story as much as they have, or they could put things in better order. They've changed quite a bit that didn't need to be changed. They should slow it down a bit.

It doesn't really matter what's missing from the books on the TV show because the books and the TV show are not the same thing. There are going to be differences; if your attachment to the books is such that the differences prevent you from enjoying the show, it says nothing of whether the same is true for everyone else. Take Blade Runner, for example. In the novel, it is made quite clear that Rick Decker is human. The idea that he could be an android is not even brought to consideration. In the film, it is quite clear that Rick is an android. This does not mean that one of these two works is wrong; they are different, seperate pieces of work that take the same set of ideas and do something a little different with them.

The Game of Thrones program cannot be expected to hit on every note that the books does; books and film cannot be held to the same standards because things that work on the page do not always work on the screen. If the show had the same level of detail as the book, it would have inexcusably slow pacing and the ratings would plummet faster than your alleged confusion about missing details. Take the show as a seperate work; facts that are critical for understanding things in the books are not critical for understanding things on the show. Only what is shown is absolutely necessary to a viewer's understanding of the plot. A viewer taking the show on its own terms will understand things as they are presented; only when you begin to demand a complete 1:1 between the book and the show do things become muddled and confusing.

[Shirosaki17]

casedawgz wrote...

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've never read the books, but I haven't had much issue following along except for remembering who a couple of people are - especially ones with brief, infrequent appearences and few lines. I still can't remember who that "honorable knight" who reads the King's will in the throne room is, for example.

But in terms of following the plot, I just have to fill in the blanks with logical assumptions. The events that went down at the end of the episode make sense without the details described above. I mean, what were we supposed to draw from that scene? Ned got played. Isn't that the gist?

Edit:  I mean, it's certainly no more difficult to follow than The Wire, which was downright punishing to viewers who missed single scenes.  All the Pieces Mattered, indeed.

If you don't get the sense they are skipping important scenes, not developing characters properly, and that there is more going on the background then I don't know what to tell you. But if you even read a summary of the books, you'd learn there is a lot more going on in the background and that we're missing a lot. Logical assumptions can't fill that in. At least not fill it in and be even close to how the story is actually told.

And because we're missing a lot we're not getting the full character development. Understanding the characters and their motivations. Some are just generic and don't tell the whole story or feel like they do.

Or we're getting scenes like the one with Littlefinger that slaps you in the face with what's about to happen instead of being more subtle and actually surprising people.

I'm just concerned that others could get this feeling, and be confused dropping ratings. I also don't think they have to depart from the story as much as they have, or they could put things in better order. They've changed quite a bit that didn't need to be changed. They should slow it down a bit.

It doesn't really matter what's missing from the books on the TV show because the books and the TV show are not the same thing. There are going to be differences; if your attachment to the books is such that the differences prevent you from enjoying the show, it says nothing of whether the same is true for everyone else. Take Blade Runner, for example. In the novel, it is made quite clear that Rick Decker is human. The idea that he could be an android is not even brought to consideration. In the film, it is quite clear that Rick is an android. This does not mean that one of these two works is wrong; they are different, seperate pieces of work that take the same set of ideas and do something a little different with them.

The Game of Thrones program cannot be expected to hit on every note that the books does; books and film cannot be held to the same standards because things that work on the page do not always work on the screen. If the show had the same level of detail as the book, it would have inexcusably slow pacing and the ratings would plummet faster than your alleged confusion about missing details. Take the show as a seperate work; facts that are critical for understanding things in the books are not critical for understanding things on the show. Only what is shown is absolutely necessary to a viewer's understanding of the plot. A viewer taking the show on its own terms will understand things as they are presented; only when you begin to demand a complete 1:1 between the book and the show do things become muddled and confusing.

I think it depends on what version of Blade Runner you see. Also, even Ford, the director and I think a producer disagreed on whether he was a human or not even after the fact.

I'm only arguing that the way the TV show is proceeding that it is leaving out good pieces of story that would further explain and develop the characters and story (in a better way) and that could leave people confused or feel like they are missing important things. I haven't made it far into the first book yet. So I haven't technically read the books. I was also saying that someone who read the books would probably understand more of what was going on, so it probably didn't matter to them.

I sense when watching the show that there are things missing and moving too fast. Then I find out that there actually is a good bit of story missing.

I'm not aruging that they should put every detail and thing in the story.

We don't know whether the show would lose ratings or gain ratings if the story slowed down a bit. Just like we don't know whether HBO would make more money if there were more episodes or not.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 30 mai 2011 - 11:13 .

[TJPags]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

twincast wrote...
You honestly think four minutes of silly faux-lesbian softporn, a reiteration of everything we've been told of LF's backstory and a relevation of LF's endgame whole seasons before it became apparent in the books which only serves to lessen the surprise of his betrayal at the end of the very same episode are some grand example of sophisticated foreshadowing?
...mkay

Yeah I can't think of a good reason why we needed to see that scene, other than to show that LF really is a screwed up, obsessive guy.

I'm already dreading his creeper turn.

And that porn was not so soft.  

All those years surrounded by ****s and he's still saving himself for Catelyn. Such a romantic. 

Hmm, yea - that's not who he's saving himself for. 

Anyway, about the books v series issue:

I've read the books several times each, even FFC, which was half a book.  They are simply excellent books, and my only complaint with them is the glacial pace at which they're written.  So I can sit here and quibble on so many minor details that are different between the two - as example, did anyone notice the white/light grey fur on Jon Snow's collar?  See anyone else at Castle Black wearing anything that wasn't black?  Yup - minor detail which is wrong.  Important?  Probably not.

Now, there are some things which I think the series is sort of hitting us in the face with.  Cercei and Jaime, as example, was hinted at very early in the very first episode.  Was the revelation that Joffrey etc. are all bastards born of incest as much of a shock in the series?  Likely not.

There are some differences in the series I think were for the worse - Littlefinger telling Sansa about the Hound, for instance, rather than the Hound revealing that.  The written scene was more powerful, IMO, and foreshadows later book events.  Tywin's army, Ned sending a letter calling for Tywin to come to King's Landing -  these are differences which I think lead to the conclusion that the Lannisters were planning a coup.   In the books, I don't think they were.  We know, in fact, that at one point in the books, Tywin becomes quite disgusted with what Cersei is doing/allowing to happen in the capital.  Will we still get that?  Maybe.

Loras egging Renly on as king, Renly making his bid for King to Ned - again, changes from the books.  Better?  I don't think so.  Important?  Maybe not.

The question is, whether these things detract from the series.  As long as the series stays consistent with the main story of the books, and keeps these differences consistent as well, I don't think they'll detract at all.

Could they lead viewers to a different impression about intentions of characters, etc., than readers got?  Sure.  But as was pointed out, GRRM is heavily involved with this series, and has written a few episodes.  So which impression is correct?  Only GRRM can say.  I can cling to my impression from the books as canon, but is it?  I don't know.  Personally, I prefer the book impressions, but that's me.

Highlighting differences, unless they do something glaring, is going to do nothing good either for the series or the books.  We can all nitpick to greater or lesser degrees, and it's fine for discussion.  But let's not get all overboard about "the book is right" or "the series is right" or "You need to/don't need to read the books to understand", etc.

I want this series to succeed, for several reasons - I love the books, I'm enjoying the series, and if the series continues, the last few books may be written more timely. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

Now I haven't read the books so I don't know how anything is going to turn out, yet part of me thinks that Jaime Lannister, despite being a total scumbag, would currently have the best chance at stopping the Dothraki horde if they do cross the sea. He's arrogant of course, yet he seems to have a clue of what he is doing and his family has what, 60,000 men at arms under their command alone? As much as I detest him, I would gladly see him put an end to Daenery Targaryen's effort.

Ned Stark seems to be a skilled swordsman and I'm guessing he is a competent commander, but first he needs to get out of his current situation. I hope his leg heals.

I'm guessing Littlefinger is going to be one of those types that just doesn't die easily.

[FedericoV]

Am I the only one who thinks that the TV version of Cersei is very different than her book counterpart and that because of the changes they made the charachter and even the plot in KL is less interesting and threatening to some extent?

Mind, I like some of the changes they made and I understand that book and TV are not the same: for example, I love the new Renly and I would even say that he is better than the book charachter.

But Cersei... the charachter is almost here but she completely lacks the evilness, the bitc*ness, the viciousness, the impulsiveness and even the stupidity of the books. I don't want to spoil anything but you know, Cersei is an evil and border line crazy scheming wh*re, not a protective and intelligent queen...

The "You win or you die" scene is the dramatic climax of the first book of the series while in the TV version looked rather hollow and dull. I don't know... she is too symphatetic.

Modifié par FedericoV, 31 mai 2011 - 06:12 .

[Addai]

They are making her more sympathetic- the biggest change being that she was in love with Robert when they married- but it's working for me. She's confident, but she's still sinister. I disagree that she isn't a "protective and intelligent queen." That describes pretty well how I see her.

[FedericoV]

Addai67 wrote...

They are making her more sympathetic- the biggest change being that she was in love with Robert when they married- but it's working for me. She's confident, but she's still sinister. I disagree that she isn't a "protective and intelligent queen." That describes pretty well how I see her.

Well, she is protective in the book, but in a narcisistic way. She sees her sons only as a projection of her ambition, not as a real mother: that's Cat! And well, she is not intelligent or smart. I can't go much farther because I don't want to spoil the fun for non readers. So sorry if I do not point facts that are still to happen. But if you have read A Feast for Crows maybe you get what I'm trying to say.

Modifié par FedericoV, 31 mai 2011 - 08:21 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

Haven't read the books, but have just, in the last few days caught up by watching the episodes so far on-line (was too busy with this annoying thing called "real life" until recently). I'm really enjoying the series.

[Seagloom]

She did blunder spectacularly in "A Feast for Crows", yep. I am indifferent toward this new Cersei for now. Her changes have taken some of the bite out of her character. I agree she seems less menacing. Actually, that final scene in the throne room is one of the few times she *has* felt like novel Cersei. All that haughtiness and coldness was evident when she tore up Ned's signed document.

I think where GoT suffers most is in how little screen time certain PoV characters get compared to others. Catelyn, for instance, feels shallower in the show. We see little of her spiteful side, and only a bit of her cunning. The scene between her and Jon before he left for the wall was much better in the books. Her words to him stung so bad I felt them.

I might not be bothered by characters such as Littlefinger getting more screen time were it not for major players being shortchanged. The showrunners seem more concerned with establishing villains and foreshadowing than character development or nuance. I mean, the scenes with Littlefinger feel less like foreshadowing than trying to infuse some black into an otherwise gray world. Like they want to give us someone to point to and say, this guy sucks. We should hate him.

I might not feel that way if Robb did not come across as so dull and humorless throughout, or Catelyn and Dany got more time. Dany in particular is just... gone. It feels like she is missing an entire dimension to her character without internal monlogues, and there is nothing to compensate for the lack. Her early relationship with Khal Drogo on the show feels very different to start. Then it catches up with her book counterpart's in the span of two scenes where she gains the ancient wisdom that some men prefer a woman on top? Gah.

On the whole I love this series. But were it not for the books, I am not sure the story would interest me as much or affect me as deeply.

Modifié par Seagloom, 31 mai 2011 - 09:08 .

[Clover Rider]

 I must say the actors they got for Catelyn, Tyrion and Arya are my favorites so far they got the feel of the characters down perfect.

[Seagloom]

Tyrion and Arya are fantastic. Peter Dinklage has made me appreciate Tyrion far more than I did in the first book. Michelle Fairley feels a bit off as Catelyn, though. She works, I guess, but is missing a spark. Plus she looks a bit too old for the role. Admittedly I'm nitpicking.

[Addai]

Maybe I'm just less inclined to critique, but no one is lacking as far as I can see (except the direwolves [/soapbox]).

With Dany you have seen her not only assert herself with Drogo, but also becoming more and more Dorthraki in her outlook, more accepting of her role among them, giving and receiving love in return.  The looks she and Drogo give each other, even their implicit understanding when Viserys was getting crowned, and their obvious mutual respect when she was eating the stallion's heart and vice versa in the Haka scene... I find it quite convincing, and moving.  On Twitter I saw someone comment on the irony that the ones doing the best of all are "the barbarian and the bought bride."

Likewise Cersei has all along seemed menacing to me, even for her "softening."  When she's commiserating with Catelyn over lost babies, she's standing over the child that she insisted had to be murdered.

Edit:  Gaaah I hate it when BSN logs me out in the middle of writing a reply.  Which lately is almost every time!

Modifié par Addai67, 31 mai 2011 - 09:25 .

[Clover Rider]

Seagloom wrote...

Tyrion and Arya are fantastic. Peter Dinklage has made me appreciate Tyrion far more than I did in the first book. Michelle Fairley feels a bit off as Catelyn, though. She works, I guess, but is missing a spark. Plus she looks a bit too old for the role. Admittedly I'm nitpicking.

The fact she "looks" old works well in my view.

[Seagloom]

@Addai - I do not disagree. (Well, I do disagree with that Twitter comment about them being the best. ) I just think Dany's personality switch from her early appearances to present occurred too abruptly. It was as if she became an entirely different person in the span of ten minutes.

[Shirosaki17]

ReconTeam wrote...

Now I haven't read the books so I don't know how anything is going to turn out, yet part of me thinks that Jaime Lannister, despite being a total scumbag, would currently have the best chance at stopping the Dothraki horde if they do cross the sea. He's arrogant of course, yet he seems to have a clue of what he is doing and his family has what, 60,000 men at arms under their command alone? As much as I detest him, I would gladly see him put an end to Daenery Targaryen's effort.

I don't get the sense that Jaime Lannister could stop the Dothraki horde. I mean we know he's a skilled warrior, but not if he's a skilled commander. He's been serving as a King's bodyguard for many years. Don't think they command armies or he specifically has.

Another thing, is with some of the development. He comes off as a man with weak leadership skills, possibly a jokster or rarely serious, with no ambition. He didn't want the King's Hand position. Tyrion implies he's much smarter than Jaime or Cersei. Tywin implies Jaime's done nothing with his life, and he hasn't led anything.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 31 mai 2011 - 10:16 .

[Obadiah]

Addai67 wrote...
...
Yeah I can't think of a good reason why we needed to see that scene, other than to show that LF really is a screwed up, obsessive guy.
...

I found the scene compelling at first, mostly for the sex. But that speech Littlefinger gave about prostitutes and clients... now that I've turned it over a few times in my head seems oddly applicable to big-business contractors in goverment.

It's probably applicable to a lot of other stuff as well...

Modifié par Obadiah, 31 mai 2011 - 11:37 .

[Addai]

Shirosaki17 wrote...
Another thing, is with some of the development. He comes off as a man with weak leadership skills, possibly a jokster or rarely serious, with no ambition. He didn't want the King's Hand position. Tyrion implies he's much smarter than Jaime or Cersei. Tywin implies Jaime's done nothing with his life, and he hasn't led anything.

That's pretty much true to the books.  They did talk about Ned finding him in the Iron Chair.

The thing that might not be clear is that the reason he became a Kingsguard was to be near Cersei, and so that he wouldn't have to marry someone else.  It's oddly touching, in a f'ed up way, that the reason he hasn't been able to be more ambitious is because of his love for her.

[Seagloom]

I wonder how Cersei would react if Jaime was as ambitious as she is? Bleh... can't really speculate on that without spoiler discussion.

[Thalorin1919]

As a reader of the books, I'm pretty satisfied with the show so far. I'll be watching Episode 7 tonight, as I haven't had time the past few days to watch it, so I'm pretty excited.

The only things I have quirked me so far is how Sansa is acting. She seems naive enough, but is a bit of a ****, where as in the books she is extremely polite. Also the scene where Cersei and Robert actually have a heart to heart conversation a few episodes ago was a big no no for me. Totally could not see them actually having a conversation like that in the books.

Also, the Renly and Loras scene was a bit gratuitous. The way you subtely find out in the books was a lot more hilarious and better in general, then what they did. I also don't like how it showed that Renly's motivations may not be enitrely his own, and that Loras is the one behind the scenes.

[TJPags]

Seagloom wrote...

I wonder how Cersei would react if Jaime was as ambitious as she is? Bleh... can't really speculate on that without spoiler discussion.

That would be a fun discussion. . .  .

Re: Jaime - he's an excellent swordsman.  He's never led men into battle.  Yet.  Those who haven't read the books - you may get a chance to see how he does, if things play out right.  Those who have read the books - well, we already know.

[FedericoV]

Ah, another think I do not get is why a charachter like Ros that's not even in the books has more screentime than Sansa and Arya combined!

[LTD]

FedericoV wrote...

Ah, another think I do not get is why a charachter like Ros that's not even in the books has more screentime than Sansa and Arya combined!

I kinda wagered the character would somehow end up combined with certain other wh0re. Judging from how she is getting all settled in KL,that doesn't seem extremely likely though. /shrug

Modifié par LTD, 01 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[TJPags]

LTD wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Ah, another think I do not get is why a charachter like Ros that's not even in the books has more screentime than Sansa and Arya combined!

I kinda wagered the character would somehow end up combined with certain other wh0re. Judging from how she is getting all settled in KL,that doesn't seem extremely likely though. /shrug

I figure the same.  No other reason for her to have such development.

[FedericoV]

No, it's not possible since the other charachter has been casted °____°.

[grimkillah]

Addai67 wrote...
Likewise Cersei has all along seemed menacing to me, even for her "softening."  When she's commiserating with Catelyn over lost babies, she's standing over the child that she insisted had to be murdered.

Where in the show did Cersei insisted that Bran had to be murdered, in fact she insisted that the boy need not be murdered for what he saw, just discredited. I sense some unjustified hate on Cersei.