Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Bad English Accent: Peter Dinklage on Game of Thrones? (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Bad English Accent: Peter Dinklage on Game of Thrones?
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I'm gathering correctly based on what I've read about the show here and elsewhere, the primary issue with the sexual content is the way in which it may detract from the content in the original novels purely because it's on HBO; by which I mean, they can show such things without regard for whether it's true to the source.
I've heard lots of complaints not that it's not just true to the source, but that it actively detracts from the storytelling.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Aros: The mind boggles. You are so totally, fundamentally wrong I have no idea where to begin! [Big Grin] Anything in particular that stands out to you as substantially better in the show? Of the top of my head I think the HBO writers have done their damnedest to distort the portrayals of a host of characters... Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei...

Many of these distortions could be argued to be necessary for the new medium... one or two of them really are, and the rest would be argued wrongly. And just for fun, a couple of them have no such justification at all, and were done apparently just Peter Jackson style, for the giggles of changing a masterpiece.

I'm fundamentally wrong on my opinion? No . . . I think I understand my opinion better than you.

And though some that might agree with me may also believe your contention (that the books are a "masterpiece"), I certainly don't. I won't debase them by speaking my opinion too loudly. But to say that they "meander" and are "self-important" might prove an understatement.

The show is fast paced, well made, and full of intrigue. I don't care if they've radically destroyed the characters from the books -- the ones on television are some of the strongest currently on air. Very much akin to either True Blood or The Walking Dead -- the series is different and great on its own merits. I'd say that all three are superior in many respects to their source material.

Do you want a more faithful adaption? Put up the billion dollars that it would take for a 70+ episode series. No one would watch it.

Posts: 1071 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
If I'm gathering correctly based on what I've read about the show here and elsewhere, the primary issue with the sexual content is the way in which it may detract from the content in the original novels purely because it's on HBO; by which I mean, they can show such things without regard for whether it's true to the source.
I've heard lots of complaints not that it's not just true to the source, but that it actively detracts from the storytelling.
I've even heard similar complaints directed at the show True Blood in relation to the novels upon which it is based. And my understanding is that those novels already include quite a bit of sexual content to begin with.

quote:
The show is fast paced, well made, and full of intrigue. I don't care if they've radically destroyed the characters from the books -- the ones on television are some of the strongest currently on air. Very much akin to either True Blood or The Walking Dead -- the series is different and great on its own merits. I'd say that all three are superior in many respects to their source material.
As someone whose familiarity with The Walking Dead is limited only to the show, I must state my opinion that I feel the program works incredibly well as a stand-alone work. At no point have I felt I needed the comics to further explain something which occurs in the show. The program is compelling enough on its own two feet.
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you want a more faithful adaption? Put up the billion dollars that it would take for a 70+ episode series. No one would watch it.
Game of Thrones as a mega-miniseries?

Sign me up.

Posts: 13010 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've even heard similar complaints directed at the show True Blood in relation to the novels upon which it is based.
Um, the complaint that I mentioned (not one that I've made -- I don't watch the show) has nothing to do with the show's relation to the original.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't mean to imply that it was. [Smile]

Edit:

Some would suggest Game of Thrones has sacrificed some story and characterization for excessive sexual content; some similar complaints have been made against the show True Blood because the sexual content which served more of a purpose in the original novels has been increased and has made the show even more of a soap opera.

I was making an admittedly poorly explained logical leap from one to the other.

I can see, though, how my wording could be read in that way, so I apologize for my poor wording. [Smile]

Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aros:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Aros: The mind boggles. You are so totally, fundamentally wrong I have no idea where to begin! [Big Grin] Anything in particular that stands out to you as substantially better in the show? Of the top of my head I think the HBO writers have done their damnedest to distort the portrayals of a host of characters... Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei...

Many of these distortions could be argued to be necessary for the new medium... one or two of them really are, and the rest would be argued wrongly. And just for fun, a couple of them have no such justification at all, and were done apparently just Peter Jackson style, for the giggles of changing a masterpiece.

I'm fundamentally wrong on my opinion? No . . . I think I understand my opinion better than you.
You aren't wrong on your opinion. Your opinion is wrong.

Yes yes yes, art is subjective it's all just opinions nobody's really right so there's no point in arguing blah blah blah. If you feel the need to stress subjectivity, mentally add "in my opinion" after the "you are wrong" above, and after everything else I say. It doesn't change anything. You'll still be wrong. [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by Aros:
And though some that might agree with me may also believe your contention (that the books are a "masterpiece"), I certainly don't. I won't debase them by speaking my opinion too loudly. But to say that they "meander" and are "self-important" might prove an understatement.

You're wrong about that, too, but that's a different argument for another day.

quote:
Originally posted by Aros:
The show is fast paced, well made, and full of intrigue. I don't care if they've radically destroyed the characters from the books -- the ones on television are some of the strongest currently on air.

Yeah, even butchered as it is, it's certainly still good by the standard of other shows. That's not really my point, and it's mostly a comment on the quality of other shows.

You didn't answer my question, though. What are some examples of changes that you like?

The only specific positive statements you've made about the show are that it is "fast paced, well made, and full of intrigue."

Well, I'll grant you fast paced. They rush through the content in the books at a lightning pace. I've never really understood complains that the books are slow-paced, though. Plenty happens in every chapter. It usually seems like those complaints just stem from people not getting to see the things they want to happen as soon as they want to see them.

Well-made... that's pretty vague. It certainly has a good budget. Not sure how to measure this against a book anyway.

And intrigue. Yeah, the show sure is full of "intrigue." Nevermind that it's intrigue stripped of subtext, where everyone spells everything out to everyone else in as painfully obvious a way as possible. Where they go well out of their way to show us who's bad and who's not as quickly as possible, to leave as little room for nuance they can.

I'm having a hard time with this one, man. How exactly does the show do intrigue better than the book?

And if that's not what you were saying, then what were you saying? You said the show is way better, so... how?

quote:
Originally posted by Aros:
Do you want a more faithful adaption? Put up the billion dollars that it would take for a 70+ episode series. No one would watch it.

70 episodes? This isn't about cutting content. I'm content with them cutting content. Heh.

This is about changing content, more than anything.

Edit: Although I'm with Sam, if they did do a version where they cut as little content as possible, I'd be on that like X trait on Y noun stereotypically bearing X trait.

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've even heard similar complaints directed at the show True Blood in relation to the novels upon which it is based.
I don't understand how a similar complaint (which has nothing at all to do with it being an adaptation) can be directed at a show in relation to the original.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please see my edit above. [Smile]
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<Facepalm> Dude . . . I could care less what they change or what they don't. I'm not obsessive enough about it to even notice what they changed. I read the books two years ago . . . how the heck am I supposed to remember all of this supposed subtext.
Posts: 1071 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So your statement boils down to:

"I don't remember the books at all, except that I remember I didn't like them. I like the show a lot."

Is that accurate?

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
I've even heard similar complaints directed at the show True Blood in relation to the novels upon which it is based.
I don't understand how a similar complaint (which has nothing at all to do with it being an adaptation) can be directed at a show in relation to the original.
Well, I suppose I just misunderstood your original post.

Sorry.

Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a problem. I saw your edit, and I see what you were saying.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My intention wasn't to put words in your mouth or anything of the like. I was just expanding upon your original comment. [Smile]
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Ah, that. I initially thought that that was what you meant, but since you specified "non-human accent", and since Lando's accent strikes my ear as being distinctly Slavic, I thought that you must have meant Delenn (whose accent truly doesn't have an earth analog, that I'm aware of).

The ironic thing is that, as others have noted, the actress who played Delenn is actually Slavic and used her natural accent, while the actor who played Londo is American and used an invented one.

Of course, I have to admit that I don't know what Croatian sounds like. It probably sounds considerably different from, say, Russian, which is probably what most people think of when they think of Slavic.

Posts: 9757 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The show really requires you divorce it from the books to enjoy it. For the first half of the first season, I was constantly comparing it to my experience with the books (which I was so deeply enthralled with that I walked around in a daze for the first week or so after reading GoT), and was deeply disappointed. After that, I simply tried my hardest to forget my memory of the books and watch it as if it was an original production, and I found I actually really enjoyed the show, especially the second time around. *shrugs*

I do agree that the gratuitous sex scenes are annoying though - I don't mind the ones that progress the story, but a lot the time the story stops cold to make room for for the sex scenes. And so far, they've been really terrible. If I just wanted to watch people having sex, there's a lot of great porn that does a much better job.

Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On that note, I watched a few episodes of the television program based on Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files, and it was totally awful. So, I had to totally obliterate any specific memory of the series to protect my emotional investment in the book series. So, that street can go both ways.
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carrie
Member
Member # 394

 - posted      Profile for Carrie   Email Carrie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A change I like: Tywin Lannister sitting at Harrenhal. Sure, the castle was in flux, but at this point in the books, the Brave Companions were pretty much running the joint, but Tywin (and no leeching...) works. (For me.) (In my opinion.)

I generally watch each episode twice: once to get all of the annoying 'What the...' moments out and once with a group of friends. Many of these friends have read the books, though some have not; all, however, have played the board game. We sometimes have to pause to think whether certain scenes were in the book or whether certain characters really would keep talking in a conversation with the Queen Regent when he clearly had the advantage without actually saying what he was quite clearly implying... Um. Right.

I'm not convinced the writers have "radically destroyed" or "distorted" most of the characters. The characters are certainly more transparent than when we're inside their heads on the written page, and sure, some scenes read very, very differently on the page than on screen. With ten-episode seasons, though, perhaps the writers found that skipping subtext allowed the plot to actually move. I don't know. I wasn't in the writers' room. For me, the essentials of each character are there - and the ones who seem different suffer from being developed at all at this point in the series. Of Dan's list of changed characterizations ("Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei"), several hadn't even been developed beyond a couple lines in the books. For two examples, Loras doesn't get interesting - or, quite frankly, relevant - until he gets to King's Landing, and it's only when Joffrey starts having Sansa beaten that Sandor becomes a human character instead of a random sword-wielding hound. Indeed, I contend that one of the most changed characters doesn't even fall on Dan's list (though Jake did mention it): Stannis, and it comes down to one scene. There was always an implied sexual relationship between Stannis and Melisandre, but a) I didn't need to see it on the map table, of all things, and b) it was never about bearing sons, because Stannis already had a child. And a fool.

This brings me to the sex, to which I say, "Meh." It's Game of Thrones and HBO. Neither entity on its own is exactly a paragon of sexual virtue, and combining the two provided exactly what I expected: boobs and violence against people who have them. They're tiresome, but honestly - I'd rather they be included than a bunch of minor characters be woefully underintroduced for the minute and a half (tops) it takes to get through one such scene. I'm also quite glad there's consistency with the hookers; it's difficult to keep all the ladies straight in the books. [Wink]

Anyhow, divorcing the show from the books seems to be how most fans handle the differences. It's still a quite good show; as an adaptation, it's among my favorites. And it's certainly not one that angers me (I have issues with "The Walking Dead", mostly because of Shane [and essentially every woman on the show]; the only movie that truly and legitimately angers me is "Troy").

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carrie:
A change I like: Tywin Lannister sitting at Harrenhal. Sure, the castle was in flux, but at this point in the books, the Brave Companions were pretty much running the joint, but Tywin (and no leeching...) works. (For me.) (In my opinion.)

Tywin was at Harrenhal. The change is that when Arya's time intersected with his she was still working with Weese, and didn't become cupbearer till she and Jaquen displaced Lorch and the other Lannister men Tywin leaves behind. Then Bolton arrives, and she becomes cupbearer. So this isn't a change so much as a time squashing. (Disclaimer: haven't actually seen this episode yet, I'm I think 2 behind schedule)

quote:
Originally posted by Carrie:
I'm not convinced the writers have "radically destroyed" or "distorted" most of the characters. The characters are certainly more transparent than when we're inside their heads on the written page, and sure, some scenes read very, very differently on the page than on screen. With ten-episode seasons, though, perhaps the writers found that skipping subtext allowed the plot to actually move. I don't know. I wasn't in the writers' room. For me, the essentials of each character are there - and the ones who seem different suffer from being developed at all at this point in the series. Of Dan's list of changed characterizations ("Sandor, Tyrion, Petyr, Dany, Drogo, Jon, Robb, Renly, Loras, Varys, Cersei"), several hadn't even been developed beyond a couple lines in the books. For two examples, Loras doesn't get interesting - or, quite frankly, relevant - until he gets to King's Landing, and it's only when Joffrey starts having Sansa beaten that Sandor becomes a human character instead of a random sword-wielding hound. Indeed, I contend that one of the most changed characters doesn't even fall on Dan's list (though Jake did mention it): Stannis, and it comes down to one scene. There was always an implied sexual relationship between Stannis and Melisandre, but a) I didn't need to see it on the map table, of all things, and b) it was never about bearing sons, because Stannis already had a child. And a fool.

I agree that I left out Stannis and Selyse. Really, I left out more than them, too, I just let my list fade because I felt I'd made my point

To some of your other comments though... yeah, I disagree. On the Hound, he absolutely had characterization in the first book.

One of his best scenes wasn't even cut from the show, they just inexplicably gave all of his lines to Petyr. So instead of having a tense one-on-one moment with Sansa where he tells her how he got his scar, Petyr tells Sansa (and Jeyne & their Septa)... about an event that only Sandor & Gregor were present for. So not only is Sandor robbed of a great scene, but the change makes no damn sense at all.

Similarly, they've glossed over plenty more in the first few episodes. It's not that surprising; most of Sandor's best stuff in early Clash is very subtle, and the show doesn't do subtle. Ever, as far as I can tell.

To some of my other characters...

Loras is unbelievably whiny in the show, so yeah, he hadn't been developed much in the books by this point, but the development the show has done has been... bizarre, and incongruous with his character as it appears later.

Renly has been turned into a wimp and a courtier. I guess to play up the gay angle and hit those stereotypes? I dunno, but he's also totally distorted.

Petyr hasn't changed so much, but his portrayal has. He wasn't nearly so overtly pure evil this early. His motives were unclear, and he seemed mostly seemed more opportunistic than Machiavellian until late in Storm.

On the flip side, at this point in the books Cersei was less sympathetic than the show seems to be trying to make her.

Robb spent the beginning of the last episode I saw justifying his war in a nonsensical scene with a random battlefield healer. I don't even know what to say about that scene, or what it says about the show's version of Robb.

Drogo was made less sympathetic, what with his blatantly raping Dany at their wedding instead of the much more interesting "no, no, no, yes" scene.

And similarly, Dany had a lot less growth in the first season, for similar reasons.

I'm not sure I will ever really forgive the writers for ruining the scene where Jon finds Ghost. Having Theon dismissively "assign" Ghost to Jon because it was the runt completely robbed Jon of one of his best moments in the first book, when he takes active responsibility for Ghost and basically tells Theon to go screw himself. The scene was inverted, for no good reason that I can see.

Most of these are relatively trivial, though. Sandor's crappy treatment hurts the most of them, him being one of my favorite characters.

But even worse is Tyrion. In a move that really solidly illustrates the fact that the writers fundamentally don't know what they're doing, they horrifically distorted Tyrion in a recent episode.

When did they do this? When they got rid of Jacelyn Bywater and folded his role into Bronn. At first glance this seems okay... Bywater had few lines and wasn't a major character.

The problem is, it profoundly changes the events.

In the book, Tyrion removes from office a corrupt, evil toady in Joffrey's (or Cersei's or maybe Petyr's) pocket and replaces him with a hard-nosed, basically honorable man. This is him living up to his promise to "do justice."

Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work.

In the show, he removes from office a corrupt, evil toady in Joffrey's pocket and replaces him with... a corrupt, evil toady in Tyrion's pocket. Bronn's amusing line now serves to underscore in no uncertain terms that Tyrion is just as bad as the other people at court.

It's a seemingly trivial change... remove a minor character... that, if you pay attention, has huge implications for his character. It's a massive, massive distortion of his character.

Frankly, I expect more of these. The writers fiddle with the story with impunity, and I don't think they have a very good idea of the consequences of that fiddling.

quote:
Originally posted by Carrie:
They're tiresome, but honestly - I'd rather they be included than a bunch of minor characters be woefully underintroduced for the minute and a half (tops) it takes to get through one such scene. I'm also quite glad there's consistency with the hookers; it's difficult to keep all the ladies straight in the books. [Wink]

Huh. Really? I always hear people complain that the books have too many characters to keep straight, but I've never really experienced that.
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work."
I think you're imagining stuff, treating everything in the books in the most charitable way possible, and treating everything in the series in the least charitable way possible.

Tyrion's look in the series after the scene where he asks Bronn, very clearly shows that it's not the attitude that he'd have *wished* of someone in his employ. That alone distinguishes him from people like Joffrey.

Tyrion in the books on the other hand uses Bronn to murder a musician (who was just doing some relatively innocent -for the standards of the world- blackmailing) and makes his body into soup.

Drogo was indeed made to *seem* less sympathetic in the series. In the books he doesn't rape Dany, but he still leads his horde to rape all those other women, and he still vouches to rape all those women of Westeros.

So, yeah, he's more sympathetic in the books in that he isn't raping the *protagonist*, he's just raping everyone *else* -- that's the sort of thing that is a moral deficiency of the books themselves, as they make a character look nicer just because he's being nice to a POV character, as opposed to all those other insignificant NPCs he's butchering and raping -- yay how sympathetic...

Renly and Sandor are worse in the series, but Loras is better. You mention Loras' whining in the series, but that's all I remember of Loras in the books: Loras whining that he wasn't allowed to chase after the Mountain and Loras whining about wanting to kill Brienne of Tarth -- in the series we instead see Loras conspiring to make Renly a king, and we also see him be intelligent enough to *figure out*, even in his grief, that it must have been Stannis, not Brienne that did it.

In short: Some characters are better in the books, but some characters are better in the series.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bella -- it turns out that you were right about Marina Cirtis. I was wrong.

It feels good to be right again. [Wink]

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
"Then, when Bronn delivers his line "Without question? No. I'd ask how much." it serves to illustrate that though Tyrion is fundamentally a better person than most of his family, he still recognizes (as his father does) that sometimes you need an evil dog to do your dirty work."
I think you're imagining stuff, treating everything in the books in the most charitable way possible, and treating everything in the series in the least charitable way possible.

Tyrion's look in the series after the scene where he asks Bronn, very clearly shows that it's not the attitude that he'd have *wished* of someone in his employ. That alone distinguishes him from people like Joffrey.

Tyrion in the books on the other hand uses Bronn to murder a musician (who was just doing some relatively innocent -for the standards of the world- blackmailing) and makes his body into soup.

The distinction being that Tyrion frequently makes immoral choices on a micro level, but does his best to make the right choices on a macro level, to create a better city/realm for the masses.

I actually think this is sort of the opposite of what you're implying... it makes him a deeply flawed person who we clearly see murder people and commit heinous acts. But we also see, on a broad scale, the good decisions he makes and the ways he tries to rein in Joffrey's worse abuses.

Except in the series, where he doesn't.


quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:

Drogo was indeed made to *seem* less sympathetic in the series. In the books he doesn't rape Dany, but he still leads his horde to rape all those other women, and he still vouches to rape all those women of Westeros.

So, yeah, he's more sympathetic in the books in that he isn't raping the *protagonist*, he's just raping everyone *else* -- that's the sort of thing that is a moral deficiency of the books themselves, as they make a character look nicer just because he's being nice to a POV character, as opposed to all those other insignificant NPCs he's butchering and raping -- yay how sympathetic...

Heh, okay, I'll give you Drogo. He was pretty bad. I mostly cared about that scene being lost because of the implications for Dany, not Drogo.

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:

Renly and Sandor are worse in the series, but Loras is better. You mention Loras' whining in the series, but that's all I remember of Loras in the books: Loras whining that he wasn't allowed to chase after the Mountain and Loras whining about wanting to kill Brienne of Tarth -- in the series we instead see Loras conspiring to make Renly a king, and we also see him be intelligent enough to *figure out*, even in his grief, that it must have been Stannis, not Brienne that did it.

In short: Some characters are better in the books, but some characters are better in the series.

I haven't seen the episode where Renly dies (I saw the first 20 minutes of an episode that might be that one; the one with the very superfluous and unnecessary Joffrey/Whores scene. I turned it off after that.)

Loras has seemed constantly irritated and whiny in demeanor so far, though. Loras in the books was privately a bit whiny, I suppose, but also pretty good at the whole gallant chivalry shtick, which he doesn't do at all on the show.

I'm curious, aside from Loras, who else do you think is actually better in the show?

Edited to fix a typo. Thanks Aris, for preemptively fixing it in your quote. That was rad of you.

[ May 03, 2012, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I personally feel they should rename the show "Tyrion is Awesome The Show".
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm curious, aside from Loras, who else do you think is actually better in the show?
Catelyn is slightly better - though all her tactical decisions are still horrid, as in the books, she atleast gets right the big strategic one that could have averted it all (Don't Go South). That's a plus.

Osha is also better I think; she was very forgettable in the books, to me atleast, but all her attitude in the series and light jabbing (mocking towards Theon, affectionate towards Bran) has made her a good character in the series.

Joffrey is slightly better too -- he was just a sadist kid in the books, and of course he largely still is, but the series has added elements where he moves and thinks independently of his mother (e.g. the baby-massacre has been assigned to him in the series, instead of the Queen -- and he has a scene where he frightens even Cersei herself).

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting observations. I'm not sure if I agree, but I don't immediately disagree, either, so there's that.
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?

Spoilers [Frown] I havent read the books.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If only there were a way to solve that problem.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you'd enjoy them, Blayne.
Posts: 857 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They've been out since the 90s, and you're watching a show about them, and reading a thread where people who have read them discuss that show. I think there's a statute of limitations on this sort of thing. (Warning: Language.)

Also, more importantly...

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

I havent read the books.

Why the heck not!?
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have them, I have this issue where I keep putting off things that I know are good for me.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, fix that issue first, it'll be much better for you in the long run.

Then read the books.

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And then Blayne read Game of Thrones to put off fixing his constant putting things off.
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if we could convince you that reading the series would be bad for you?
Posts: 857 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THE BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU BRAIN CAVITIES.
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... Isn't that just another way of saying it will wrinkle his brain?

(Warning: Community season 2 spoiler at the end of the video)

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just have a lot going on, I'll get to them eventually, I just finished reading Halo: Glasslands which was awesome and Karen Traviss is now my new favorite scifi author that's still writing military scifi stuff. So I need a moment to recover.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?

In hindsight it occurs to me: What the heck are you talking about?

How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A Halo spin-off novel? Foolish mortal.
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This show is brilliant. That's my only opinion on it.
Posts: 1235 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, I wasn't even going to go there, Steve. Though I certainly considered it.

Many of us have read and loved crappy books in our lives, sometimes even concurrent with reading and loving good books. It happens.

Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will totally admit that in my case as well. My comment was only meant in jest. [Smile]
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south
I meant that in the series she asks Ned not to go to King's Landing. In the books she likes and supports the idea of Ned going to King's Landing instead.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?

In hindsight it occurs to me: What the heck are you talking about?

How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?

Im going by the comments in the thread, since I like the current portrayels, thus the books must be worse.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Joffrey is slightly better too -- he was just a sadist kid in the books, and of course he largely still is, but the series has added elements where he moves and thinks independently of his mother
I agree that Joffrey is a stronger character in the show, but I think they do that at the expense of making Cersei a weaker character. Since Joffrey isn't under her control, she is far less powerful and less interesting.
Posts: 1944 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I agree regarding Joffry, Catelyn was Ned's wife right? Did she say to her son not to go south?

In hindsight it occurs to me: What the heck are you talking about?

How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?

Im going by the comments in the thread, since I like the current portrayels, thus the books must be worse.
I don't follow this logic. You're saying the books must be worse than the show based on comments which are the opinion of other people?
Posts: 6005 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're talking to the same person who, when I mentioned a show he wasn't familiar, said "let me check tvtropes and see if I like it." I'm not sure if logic applies here.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
How can you agree that the show does a character better than a book you've never read?

Heck...if OSC can do it...

[ May 06, 2012, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 4982 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
amarinatale
New Member
Member # 12894

 - posted      Profile for amarinatale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I've always thought it weird that Americans expect British or pseudo-British accents for roles like that.

Did it bother you that Charles Winchester in M.A.S.H had a British accent even though he was from Boston? It never bothered me, many Americans view a British accent as bringing as sort of credibility to aristocrat or intellectual figures.

I always assumed that the accent was an affectation on Winchester's part.
Nope! Chahles Winchstah the Thuhd was a Boston Brahmin -- absolutely faithful. It's a very weird accent, and increasingly rare. I think it sort of percolated up to the very rich from the original British accents in the area. Here's a sample of the accent.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very interesting! Thanks!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What timely thread necromancy! ElJay and I just finished watching S1 -- rewatching for me. We still haven't seen S2, and won't until the Blu-rays come out (so... like... next summer? Thanks, HBO! Keep clinging to that antiquated business model!), but I'm really looking forward to it. We've both read the first book, but it was quite a long time ago. I stopped reading the series after that, but she's read the first three or four. I'm very curious to see how not having read the second book changes my experience of watching the show.

Based on how much I enjoyed S1, and on how much more I enjoyed watching S1 than reading book 1, I suspect that watching S2 without a clue about what will happen will be even more enjoyable than watching S1 was. If that turns out to be true, I probably won't ever return to the books -- or, if I do, it'll be after the series is done.

Posts: 10878 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2