You think? No shit, I'm sticking with 'current story' - that was the whole the fucking point of my post. I'm more than aware that there are a shitload of female characters, but besides Dany and Cersei, are any of them REALLY leads in there here and now? How about moving forward? Yes, two mentioned take on bigger parts, but not yet. And frankly the two that do, one is not super inspiring of emotion and the other is too young (even in the tv show) to really hold the title of a 'female lead.' Why not bring up Catelyn Stark, while you're at it. Oh. Yeah, again, female lead, but her story has been a bit stagnant. Uh, have you followed the publishing of 'Feast' and 'Dance?' You understand that the clusterfuck that is those books is solely due to him writing and rewriting to the point that he couldn't organize them any other way? And when major characters are gone/combined/motives/actions changed, that's called 'editing.' As in 'changing.' And a lot of that has occurred over the last two seasons. I find it hard to believe that after the first time it happened in a major way last season, he didn't call up the writers and say 'yo, what the fuck?' He's the executive producer. Shit doesn't get changed to this degree unless he's aware of it. Are you sure I'm the only one not watching?
Not to get into a pissing match here. Disagree about the strength of the female characters, but sure okay cool. Also, when I was talking about Martin not rewriting, he's not the making the decisions to change things drastically from the books. I'm talking about he's specifically is not making any major changes from what he had published. He will not have written the book one way, then write an episode another way unless Benioff & Weiss tossed in a character he has to deal with. Also, he's not in the writing credits for any of the episodes that have major changes. Check his blog (or just read the article) he said he didn't know about the change in tone for that scene specifically as well. Martin usually writes the episodes that stick more closely to the book. All the changes are in Benioff and Weiss's hands. So he's not calling up the guys like "yo, wtf." He's already handed over the reigns (i.e. rights) to Benioff and Weiss. They can change the story as they see fit without getting approval from him. And they'll have to given the fact he hasn't written the last two books, and Feast/Dance was a little messy.
I'm spoilering this for length. Anyone interested in why the ages of the characters are still in line with the spirit of the books can read my horribly pedantic opinion below: Spoiler First off, an article with Martin saying why he agrees with the different ages: "We did age the characters, which is partly the difference between prose and film and television," Mr. Martin said. "When I was writing the books I did a lot of research in the Middle Ages, and life spans were a lot shorter than now, and maturity came on a lot more quickly. They didn't have the concept of teenagers or adolescents." Granted, a lot of the aging was artistic license, but if Martin agrees that it works with the spirit of his books, then clearly the ages don't have a whole lot to do with the plot line other than being 'children vs adults.' Given that everyone who is a 'good guy' on the show is still >17, I'd say they're still getting that point across rather well. A 17-year-old virgin getting raped on her wedding night by a 30-year-old beast is still fucked up, but fucked up in the context of, "That poor child on the brink of womanhood, violently put into a world she doesn't understand," rather than, "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HE'S FUCKING A CHILD." Secondly, there is a lot of misinformation about medieval times. Average ages are skewed by high infant mortality rates, and death was mostly a factor when you were still a child (i.e. under the age of 21), and people confuse life expectancy with actual life spans. Yes, if you were born, you were expected to live to maybe 30, but if you made it out of shitty childhood where everyone was dropping like flies, you had a reasonably good chance of living another twenty years (making deaths common around 40) if you were a peasant, and even longer if you could live in places where you could avoid starvation or illness, or getting your head chopped off. Martin, having likely done much more extensive research than I have done on the subject previously, would know things like this. Now, to your point, the books are about the children of the Starks and Targaryens fighting the old world order. That's still the case. Everyone who is a child is still a child. There is no concept of teenagers or adolescents. They're children. The adults are still adults, and the old people are still fucking old. Only because it is a show, instead of having a bunch of shitty child actors, we have some slightly older actors who can actually deliver on the story lines they're given. Even so, the spirit of children vs. adults remains, and remains factually correct. The GoT wikia goes into that in more depth. Anyway, this is all based on my opinion that as long as it remains Kids v Fucked Up Adults, the books and the show are in line with each other. While you may still disagree that's so, it should not be because of a small misconception that everyone seems to have about actual average age in medieval times.
The average age being skewed by infant mortality is something I like to bring up when people say that everyone died young back then. I read that if you made it to adulthood, the real average life expectancy was in the mid 60s or so. So Tywin and Jeor Mormont as Lords in their 70s are ok, Maester Aemon is like the old Ladies Willard Scott calls out on their 100th birthdays. The difference in the kids ages isn't really such a big deal, or even that noticeable, with the main exception of Bran. He started the show as a cute 9 or 10 year old, and now he's a beak nosed teenager. They're just lucky the character is crippled, so they can hide how tall he's gotten. Arya has luckily remained rather elfin, Sansa was always willowy and tall, and Joffrey was too good an actor for us to really care about anything but hating him.
I loved that episode. Plenty of magnetic interactions, and I guess we know what happens to the babies and it ain't kindergarten. Jaime had some great scenes. Such a 180 he's taken since episode 1.
Yes, this is what I was afraid of, they are fundamentally changing the story and characters. It's not that the show isn't well done, it is extremely well done, it's just becoming unrecognizable. The whole 'Craster's Keep' thing bothered me to begin with, the books have it getting overtaken by the Others, only to have the remnants of the Night's Watch return to Castle Black ahead of them. It set up such a dynamic that gives a great flow to Feast. It's also tough watching Jaime and his redemption storyline now that he's a rapist. Again, well done, but if this show were based on real life, we'd be getting the 'Inspired by Real Events' description. If it continues, I may well check out, because at this point they're barely keeping the story (as far as events going forward) somewhat like the book. Like Bran getting captured by the Night's Watch mutineers? Really?
You'd rather they keep Bran's whole "nothing happens to me for 6 books" storyline going? Seriously, I know people who outright skip Bran chapters because NOTHING HAPPENS. At least this is something happening. As for going off book elsewhere... They really haven't. The only major thing that is off the book is the Craster's keep storyline, and I'm ok with it. It makes Bran at least halfway interesting for the first time in a long time, watching Jon and the nights watch prepare for a war would be boring for a TV show, and this gives them all something more interesting. My guess is they'll be right back on book in 3 episodes, and by the end of the season.
What the hell was with that puddle freezing in the woods? My buddy who read the books says its an intro to a character called, Spoiler Coldhands? What the fuck is a Coldhands? Also, agreed on Jaime. He was almost endearing this episode, then I remembered he raped his sister. Anyone else read the AV Club reviews? They do a book-readers review and a newbie review for people who only watch the show. Interesting to see the comparisons.
Things that have fundamentally changed: Jaime rapes Cersei Craster's Keep storyline 'The Others' creating another 'Other' (we assume this happens somehow, but it remains a mystery in the books to date) Bran getting captured Bronn training Jaime (understandable, the guy that played Ilyn Payne died in real life) Solving Joffrey's murder Everything at Castle Black Sending Gilly Off All of the above play parts in later books, and by changing them now, you have fundamentally changed the flow of the books. The characters are starting not to make sense to themselves (specifically Jaime and Jon Snow). As to the 'Bran' storyline, yes, I found it boring. I also think streamlining it makes sense, what doesn't make sense is making him a more integral part in the goings on that were created specifically for the show. At this point in the story, Bran understands he needs to go North of the Wall and that Castle Black is not the right place for him. To repudiate that storyline, given where Bran's storyline goes, creates some pretty major issues down the road.
It's probably a simple reason, such as Martin and the producers intentionally changing things so the book readers have their own surprises. I haven't read the books so I don't give a shit either way. So it was Olenna and Littlefinger that killed Joffrey. Olenna to protect Maergery (who was awesome again this episode) and LF for whatever he's has planned since day 1. Does Dani really need to conquer Westeros anymore? She has her own legacy on the opposite hemisphere now.
The vast majority of what you mentioned were changes about everything at the wall. The only three non-Wall events that changed were Jaime raping Cersei, Bronn training Jaime, and revealing Joffrey's killer. First, they did reveal Joffrey's killer too soon. They should've at least waited until after Tyrion's trial, and tried to plant seeds of doubt in the viewers mind if Tyrion really did it. Second, the Jaime/Cersei scene is in the book. They didn't change the scene so much as completely fuck up the execution, something GRRM points out when asked about it. Third, Bronn training Jaime is way more interesting and a better change than Illyn Payne training him. Bronn all but disappears at this point in the books, so it keeps his character in the show and gives him someone new to play off of. Bronn has been one of the best TV characters, who didn't have a ton of development in the books, so that is a change I fully support. I just don't think it is as off book as you seem too. I think they realized nothing was happening at the wall with Bran or Jon, and they needed SOMETHING to do at one of their major locations, so they wrote that in. I also think: Book spoiler: Spoiler Bran will teach Jon to be a skin changer, which is an ability Jon has in the books when he enters into Ghost's body. At least that would provide a logical reason to get those two together, even if only briefly.
As a book reader, I'm fucking glad that the show is beginning to diverge so much from the source material. It's incredibly refreshing to see shit I haven't read yet/will ever read because the books may be different. I don't recall people internet raging when Christopher Nolan essentially rewrote the Batman mythos in order to fit it into 3 movies. Why they're doing it for ASOIAF is mystifying.
Man Ive never been this interested or immersed in something that hardcore nerds nerd out about. Ya'll need to chill.
All that I'm doing is watching an excellent show unfold on screen. I thought the last episode was the season's best, the size of the show's production and design is massive now, as good as the biggest movies at times.
I will address these seriatum. Joffrey's Killer: Spoiler For the rest of the written books, you're never sure whether Tyrion did it or not. At times, you think, well, maybe, but there were so many others with motive. By revealing it too soon, or at all, you're undercutting Tyrion's development. Jaime: Spoiler A big theme in this book is the battle between Cersei and Tyrion for Jaime's soul. He starts out the bad guy, but through several books (including the two yet to come in the TV series), he changes, slowly, like a real person does. While 'The Scene' is in the book, it is completely consensual. I will let the ladies tell us if there's a difference in attitude between rape and consensual inappropriate sex. I suspect strongly there is. This undercuts Jaime's development and basically nullifies all of his development through 2,000 pages of Feast and Dance. Not a good move. Bronn: Spoiler Fucking great character. Problem is, in the books, he sells everyone out. The whole purpose of Ilyn training Jaime is he can't speak. By adding Bronn to this particular mix, you basically again ruin Jaime's development. There WILL be a scene where Bronn sells him out. There's nothing like that in the books to date, and given that Jaime is the Kingslayer and head of the Kingsguard, that's a big fucking problem. Bran: Spoiler I agree, the Bran storyline is boring for most of the books, but it is a set up. And given if you read the books you know where Jon is going, the rest of the story makes no sense if Jon is now a cognizant shape shifter. Jon: Spoiler The best part of Jon's story is how this bastard takes command of the Night's Watch, but since they've fucked that storyline, what happens in Feast and Dance is now pointless. Ultimately, I agree, some of the storylines are more interesting in the short term, but again, my issue is how this works in the long run. Like the Jaime fuck up, how do you really enjoy the recurring theme if they totally fuck it before it's developed. Look, I like the show, but it is quickly bearing little resemblance to the actual books. Given the show is based on the books, and I read them, I am a bit disappointed in this season.
For the record, when shit gets REALLY cold north of the wall out of nowhere, it just means there are The Other's around. Its not tied to anything one specific person/thing. It just means "Oh shit, there are Ice Zombies somewhere close by." That happens every time a baby gets dropped off. They bring their own little storm with them. VI, I think you have some points, but are a little too hard on them. In this episode with the Jaime/Cersei scene, you could tell that they underestimated/fucked up the execution of rape scene. Their next scene together fits in perfectly if it was consensual (as they meant it to be, somehow). If you watch the show like that scene never happened (non-book readers, please forget it entirely, for you sake) everything still works. For the book readers freaking out, relax. They aren't going to change any major plot points and/or characters. All they are doing is changing some of the journey's to get there. They still will hit every single major thing that needs to happen, but they might get there slightly differently. Like yes, Jaime wasn't there when Joffery was poisoned in the books, but did it really change shit that he was there in the show? Nope. No Bran and Jon aren't supposed to bump into each other, but what I think will happen is that Bran & Co will somehow escape as the fight is starting and they still won't bump into each other. Maybe even a The Other's interruption on top of that to scatter everyone before they can talk. That last scene was fucking tits though. It was impossible to tell from the way the books are told from viewpoints. Super excited to get a glimpse of it, because that's going to factor heavily into the endgame.
Why do you keep saying this? They already have changed major plot points and characters. Not really debatable. If you read the book, then watched the show, there are major changes in characters and plot lines. This isn't opinion, it is fact. Look, if a story to you is the 'endgame' - then yes, changes in how you get there don't really matter so long as you get to the 'end point.' Why are they major changes to me? Here's one example: Spoiler When Cersei gets arrested in Dance, she sends a note to Jamie saying 'I need you, I need you, I need you.' Does this sound like a note a victim would send to her rapist? No, of course not. What does Jaime do? Remember? He tosses it in the fire, signifying his pulling away from Cersei - after discovering what an evil person she is. That scene, arguably one of the most important in the books for Jaime, totally loses its impact, because he is a rapist and obviously no longer cares for Cersei, 2 books and a lot of shit long before he should have from the book perspective. You can say 'it's not a major change' all you want, but it is. It affects every pov chapter for Jaime from this point forward. If it's not a big deal to you, great. I mean that, if it doesn't matter to you, fantastic. But it's a bit like saying 'oh, yeah, this chick from Kansas gets whisked away, meets some folks, but in the end beats that nasty witch' and saying 'oh, that about covers it. A story isn't just where it goes, it's how you get there. At least, it is to me. And 'how they are getting there' has become completely fucked, compared to the books. As it's own thing? Sure, it's a different story, parts are better, etc. But don't advertise it as an adaptation of the books (i.e. calling it 'Game of Thrones') if the story is going to drastically change. It's no longer 'Game of Thrones' - it's now 'A story involving characters from Game of Thrones in an alternate universe.' But please stop with the 'they're not changing anything major.' They already have.
I see the issue here. We're quibbling over the term "major change." To me, nothing has been so drastically different from the books that I don't know exactly where it's going from reading them, and therefore I don't think ANYTHING they've changed has been major. To me, they're the kind if minor changes I'd expect of any book-to-tv or film adaptation. Jaime raping Cersei is the exception, but I think that was more piss poor execution by directors and writers at getting their intent across (the writers are claiming it wasn't rape and was consensual as it was in the books). I think the writers intend to continue as if that wasn't a rape (note: it was totally rape), because they just did a shitty job with the scene. That said, nothing else, to me, is drastic. Also: Spoiler I'm pretty sure he hasn't left any doubt in the books that the Tyrells were behind Joffrey's death. I don't recall thinking Tyrion did it at all by the time I got caught up in the books. Now, if you are hung up on the tremendously shitty handing of that Jaime/Cersei scene, that is understandable and a very valid complaint. But otherwise you and I just seem to have very different definitions of "major change." For the record, to me, a major change is a book character dying before the books, or completely switching sides. I'm sure there are other examples, but typing on an iPhone sucks.
Cosigned. Yes, Robert Dying, Ned Stark Dying, Renly Dying, Dany having dragons, Dany taking over cities, Joffrey Dying, etc, that's shit I call "Major points." Now what you quoted/spoilered VI is something that is a symbolic gesture of a character's feelings, but they can hit that point a different way. They can't kill Joffrey another way, they can't have the Red Wedding go down another way. Those events are what I'm calling major events, and there haven't been any major changes in that regard. Everything in between is the journey, which hints and, and colors the major points, but there are multiple roads to King's Landing (ahem, Rome). Also once you acknowledge the fact the rape wasn't a changed, it was just a botched scene (seriously, where the fuck were the women on set that read the books?) everything proceeds as normal. Just as it did in this episode. Take Arya being Tywin's cupbearer instead of Roose's in the book during season 2. That was over the course of 4 episodes, was it a change? Yes, but was it a major change? No. But as D26 pointed out, we have a differences the idea of "major changes".