Wikia

Game of Thrones Wiki

Changes: Talk:Characters significantly changed between books and TV series

Edit

Back to page

(Implying it's wrong to make changes in adaptation)
(Robert and Cersei's son)
Line 60: Line 60:
 
::::: I forgetting the wording, but it was something about "he died" which means he wasn't a stillbirth (you have to be alive to die) and for all we know, he could have been 5 hours old or 5 years old. It would fit into the stretch the show makes in years between when AGOT starts and Robert's Rebellion. TV Joffrey obviously wasn't born into a few years into Robert and Cersei's marriage (versus Book Joffrey being born not that long after Robert's Rebellion) so the son might be a fill-in since it would be noticed that King and Queen are childless for all those years. That's just my own fanfic theory I guess. [[User:CestWhat|CestWhat]] ([[User talk:CestWhat|talk]]) 05:19, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::: I forgetting the wording, but it was something about "he died" which means he wasn't a stillbirth (you have to be alive to die) and for all we know, he could have been 5 hours old or 5 years old. It would fit into the stretch the show makes in years between when AGOT starts and Robert's Rebellion. TV Joffrey obviously wasn't born into a few years into Robert and Cersei's marriage (versus Book Joffrey being born not that long after Robert's Rebellion) so the son might be a fill-in since it would be noticed that King and Queen are childless for all those years. That's just my own fanfic theory I guess. [[User:CestWhat|CestWhat]] ([[User talk:CestWhat|talk]]) 05:19, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::...yeah I need to rewatch that scene to get the exact wording. Yeah, actually that theory makes a lot of sense; need to explain Cersei having a child the first year of marriage without it being Joffrey because of the added two years.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 05:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::...yeah I need to rewatch that scene to get the exact wording. Yeah, actually that theory makes a lot of sense; need to explain Cersei having a child the first year of marriage without it being Joffrey because of the added two years.--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 05:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
::::::: There's another scene with Catelyn in 1.02 where Cersei mentions that he was taken away by fever although he struggle before hand. Catelyn says she never knew about Cersei's first-born dying (personally that's odd since the first pregnancy of the Queen would be a big deal). There's this one with Robert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh3iLEMG-cA (starts 5:20 mark). I feel like there is a scene somewhere where it's mentioned that Cersei's dead first-born son's hair was dark brown hair which gets Ned Stark a-thunkin' [[User:CestWhat|CestWhat]] ([[User talk:CestWhat|talk]]) 05:48, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
+
::::::: There's another scene with Catelyn in 1.02 where Cersei mentions that he was taken away by fever although he struggle before hand. Catelyn says she never knew about Cersei's first-born dying (personally that's odd since the first pregnancy of the Queen would be a big deal). There's this one with Robert. I feel like there is a scene somewhere where it's mentioned that Cersei's dead first-born son's hair was dark brown hair which gets Ned Stark a-thunkin' [[User:CestWhat|CestWhat]] ([[User talk:CestWhat|talk]]) 05:48, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
I was indeed mistaken, Cersei and Robert's child was not stillborn, but "died of a fever", which means it survived at least some time after birth, rendering the controversy over how to treat a stillborn character moot. I have asked Werthead about how to handle this new "character".--[[User:The Dragon Demands|The Dragon Demands]] ([[User talk:The Dragon Demands|talk]]) 16:41, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
   
 
==Minor and Big changes==
 
==Minor and Big changes==

Revision as of 16:41, March 24, 2013

Implying it's wrong to make changes in adaptation

This is probably opening a can of worms like most book-or-TV stuff, but the wording in the article about how the show has to justify what is changes and doesn't seem a bit weird. I just think there is a tone in the article that whenever the show doesn't follow something from the novels exactly, the article make it out to be that the show is in the wrong. Maybe I'm out-to-lunch on this, but just think the POV of people of either prefer the changes or are indifferent to changes are valid too. Pointing out what the show significantly changed is interesting, but the article seems to come as if the show was in the wrong to do whatever changes it made or has aside disagreeing with the reasons why the show producers explained the reason the show did that. Go nuts on disagreeing with the TV folks, but just felt that within the article itself, it could be a bit more neutral and let folks reading it make up their own minds. Again, just a thought I was putting out there and no offense meant by me to any contributors. CestWhat (talk) 18:21, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Never let your sense of morals stand in the way of doing what is right. Any comparison between books and TV series will, inherently, result in subjective comparison. That's what such pages are for. Full citations were included not simply listing our opinions, but major reviewers (WinterIsComing.net, Westeros.org) and even George R.R. Martin himself, commenting on the changes. In particular, it needed to be pointed out that changing around the Robb/Talisa storyline was drastically unnecessary...which isn't much of a stretch, as this is what Martin himself said; simply expounding upon it. A change isn't necessarily "bad" if it is "significant"; i.e. there's nothing negative in here about changing around Osha or Shae. TV-first fans need it to be explained when things don't fit together well because they aren't following the books well enough. It isn't saying that changes are "bad" - at the same time, considerable space is given to explaining that "minor changes" are just that: not really significant, and Syrio not being bald or actually seeing the Renly-Loras-Margaery POV aren't brought up as a negative. And I know damn well that that was the SNL picture.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:53, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
Again, this was just a point brought up for discussion rather then meant to offend you or anybody else.
If you knew that was Michael Moynihan, why caption it "George R.R. Martin"? CestWhat (talk) 19:12, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oh I'm not angry or offended or anything. (The Moynihan thing was just a slight joke; minimized so the resolution is hard to see, I wanted to see how long it would take for anyone to notice it was the SNL image).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:22, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
An aside from the article, "George R.R. Martin didn't like X, Y or Z in the TV show" is totally relevant point, but guess it doesn't have the same impact personally. Source material authors grumbles in public about the "Hollywood version" of their work is so common is pretty much a cliché. Martin got well paid (especially when you compared that money to what even famous writers make on a book advancement or major magazine piece) when he signed over his novels. Also if a "bad" version of something in the novels happens on TV, it isn't like the novels are being rewritten by HBO or people can't seperate the two.
I'm not saying that stuff like Robb/Jeyne-Talisa changes made them my favorite storylines of all time, but somebody out there must have prefer it? Plus there are even more TV-only fans then just TV-first. CestWhat (talk) 19:55, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
Reducto ad Lucas? Martin isn't George Lucas, these aren't just minor points that the "whiny author" is obsessing over; indeed, Martin has shown that he isn't really concerned with many minor points (character appearance, etc.). By that logic anything a writer states about an adaptation would be a "cliche", and this is an ongoing book series from a greatly respected author. Make no mistake: the story belongs to Martin, not us. Martin's word is law: So. Spake. Martin. Overall, however, you're attacking the very concept of criticism: why even judge M. Night Shymalan's The Last Airbender flop, in comparison to the hit TV series which he seemingly went out of his way to ruin and poorly adapt? Yes, the entire point is that we are judging how well the adaptation went, or at least pointing out things that were sacrificed, but weighting the options (i.e. the chain in the Battle of the Blackwater probably would have been too expensive to film). It's like...there have been many film adaptations of "Pride and Prejudice": if a new adaptation was truly godawful, made terrible decisions that do not reflect the source material in any way....do you honestly think that that producer has the right to say, "well, this is my adaptation, so you can't judge it as the book". No. Of course we don't judge it as the book: we judge it in comparison to other "Pride and Prejudice" adaptations which successfully adapted things that the current version simply got wrong. Thus you cannot fall back onto a simple "well this is a book adaptation and isn't the book" -- the entire point is that it wouldn't have been difficult to adapt these scenes better -- sort of comparing it to a hypothetical, better adaptation (while in the case of "Pride and Prejudice", there are different versions to compare it to).
This is a major point that Martin himself brought up which refutes what you're saying: the TV producers defend the Jeyne to Talisa change as "well, this is an adaptation, not the book"....when Martin himself said that there was no real need for an adaptation to change this, and indeed, it doesn't get some core concepts about who Robb Stark is (that like his father, he'll follow honor even when it is impractical). Removing the chain from the Battle of the Blackwater, making Whispering Wood offscreen....this are production issues which no different, hypothetical TV adaptation could make within budget. But *basic character interaction* and dialogue? Money isn't an issue there, time constraints aren't an issue there. They never really defended changing Jeyne from a minor Lannister bannerman's daughter to some cliched medic from Volantis named Talisa.
Again, Martin pointed out that these are two entirely separate issues: 1 - show what Robb did off-screen, and 2 - the decision to drastically change what Robb did offscreen. Why? It wasn't to condense anything, or expand on anything. Budget and time were not an issue. So your basic line of reasoning is "it isn't our place to point out what is different?" "Well there are TV only fans?" -- ...you do...realize...that this is a "differences between books and TV series" article, and thus the entire point in reading it is for TV-first fans who might honestly care about how it differs from the books? A TV-only fan, by your reasoning, wouldn't even bother reading it..............in which case, you admit that I'm writing it for the TV-first fans who want a clear explanation of what changed from book to screen.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:11, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
My logic is that quote George R.R. Martin's about the changes, but that he isn't the sole authority or that what he says can't be questioned. With Talisa-Jeyne or other stuff, I can just think of tons of reasons for why the TV folks changed that character that are relevant. And do the TV folks even need to defend making the change in the first place?
The writers and directors are artists too and they have to see in Martin's work field of play for their own imagination and their own concerns.
Also I'm not against critics. I'm just pointing out that this is a reference of the changes rather then a review of them.
It goes back to the point about "tone" rather just facts. CestWhat (talk) 20:25, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

A separate point: "maybe TV-only fans prefer TV-Robb over book-Robb"....by which you're saying, Mary Sue lionized boy-king TV-Robb might be simply more popular with people than book-Robb, a generally good but somewhat flawed leader who like his father puts honor before reason. The entire attraction was the books was complex, morally grey characters. You're arguing in favor of people liking a flanderized version in which we only have black and white characters. If people like TV Robb and are cheering him for needlessly and counter-intuitively arresting Catelyn and simply ignoring her when she validly points out that by throwing away his Frey marriage alliance he is jeopardizing the war.....they're liking him for the wrong reasons. That will be stamped out. Ser, the entire point of wikis is to tell people the facts of what is true, not what people wish or believe to be true.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:14, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Everybody loves a lover I guess? Again, TV Robb wasn't as good as Book Robb is a subjective opinion, not the total true. Folks liking TV Robb for "the wrong reasons" isn't for anybody to tell them. The fundamental question of prefering TV show over the novels or vis-versa is up to each person's own tastes. CestWhat (talk) 20:25, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with CestWhat in this matter. Whether changes are negative or positive is beyond the purpose of the article. You can quote both opinions, but not take sides. "Mary Sue" and Flanderization have negative connotation and should be removed from the article. See wikipedia on Weasel/Peacock Words.21:03, March 8, 2013 (UTC)Gonzalo84 (talk)
...I didn't use the terms "Mary Sue" and "Flanderization" within this article.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:08, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but anybody can't read this article and not get the point of view of whoever wrote it.CestWhat (talk) 22:31, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me start over here: what were specific things which should be changed? Yeah, parts were kind of acerbic. First off, am I correct in assuming the only parts under scrutiny are "Robb/Talisa/Catelyn" and "Dany and Qarth in Season 2"? The other parts were actually quite positive, just explaining why and how subtle changes were made; I mean the entire "Minor differences" section is basically just saying "these don't really change anything"; as for the "Major changes" section, Osha and Shae don't really bring up any negatives (I think). So process of elimination narrowing it down:

Is there anything that should be changed about the Dany and Qarth section? It was just at times pointing out the obvious that "Doreah was never Dany's enemy, dies before Qarth, this is all new for the TV series continuity" etc. It was so drastically different that it couldn't exactly be "condemned" as "adaptation". The overall point in the Qarth section which I guess is negative is "they stretched a single chapter out over four episodes, and it kind of shows when Dany just drops into episodes later in the season to say "where are my dragons?" just as a placeholder without really moving the action forward. That's more of a pacing thing, and just stating the truth: the "stolen dragons" subplot was all Dany was doing in late season 2. I feel sorry for the TV-first viewers who thought Qarth was going to be a particularly important new setting, because they leave and don't return - in contrast to Slaver's Bay, where the Daenerys storyline will stay for several seasons. Anyway, I don't think this is particularly negative: any objections? Or can we focus our attention on the Robb/Talisa/Catelyn stuff?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:52, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Also the way that what the TV show makers give reason A or B for the changing whatever, don't really believe there is a need to refute them (i.e. the part about Yara switched from Asha was too similar to Osha. Seems like editorizing about whether that is indeed true or whether Osha's name should have been changed instead). CestWhat (talk) 02:53, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
No. Large-scale editorializing is bad, but we cannot remove human agency; bluntly, the Asha/Osha mixup is glaringly obvious and has been remarked upon by WinterIsComing.net and Westeros.org when news came of the rename. The producers are never going to stand on the rooftops and shout "we didn't realize how similar these names were until a full season after we introduced a character" - they're embarrassed. No, that isn't "editorializing" to the point of adding in our own opinions, and no, that will not be removed; there will be no discussion. Again, Westeros.org and WinterIsComing.net pretty much already pointed out that they should have changed Osha's name in the first place.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:17, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I expended the energy to look up a cited link from WinterIsComing.net, that will have to suffice. But yes, yes we need to refute things; the entire point in noting "differences between books and TV series" is to weigh and compare. Over on Tolkien fansites and wikis, half the fun is debating whether a change in adaptation was merited. Sort of the same criticism that The Daily Show has been making of the current "mainstream media" in American journalism: they reached a point when they would just blindly repeat verbatim quotes from public figures, not even trying to act as a filter, and thus not pointing out when public figures made blatantly wrong or self-contradictory statements. We should use...citation, and such. Rest assured that Westeros.org and WinterIsComing.net are to be given equal footing to the TV producers when it comes to citing comments. Yes, they are a "notable source". We do what needs to be done.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:26, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I think Gonzalo84 was making this point as well, this article isn't the forum for the debate or writing as if the show is "right" or "wrong" for making these changes to characters or plots (that's what forums and message boards are for). The article's a reference and I'm sure a person reading would like to make up his or her mind about it. They can agree that Asha and Osha sound similar or not without anybody telling them. CestWhat (talk) 04:37, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've been pushing the issue for so long: most of what goes on on Tolkien-related wikis is pointing out changes in adaptation. I cited the Asha/Yara changeup to WinterIsComing.net. Now besides the Robb/Talisa/Catelyn section, do you have any problems with the other sections? I'm looking for specific examples now. You honestly think we're not allowed to point out that Asha and Osha sound similar? This is what "differences between books and TV adaptations" sections are for. Now do you have specific things you want altered? I'm looking for a list.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:44, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
But TV folks "probably didn't realize" the similarity until later isn't in that source. Maybe they just like the name Osha more then Asha. Just because Osha is a less significant character then Asha in the novels, why does that mean TV Osha should have been renamed rather then Asha? It's an opinion, but it isn't the same as a reference. Also pointing out right after that Osha and Asha are dissimilar enough in pronoucation is just an opinion. CestWhat (talk) 04:50, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying that we can't make minor comments small changes in the TV series? You honestly think they randomly changed an established character's name simply because they "liked it more"?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:59, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to get this Asha/Osha thing out of the way so we can move on to bigger matters: I actually oppose making our own negative editorializing. Pointing out the Osha/Asha similarity isn't "negative" (it even points out that changing to "Yara" doesn't really affect anything), but it's pointing out the counter-intuitive logic behind the decision. Again: besides the Asha stuff, what complaints do you have?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 05:03, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

You are new on this wiki, but do you understand that you're basically arguing against the very concept of us even having "in the books" sections in the episode guide articles? You're asking us to make a wiki for the TV series in isolation, pretending the books simply didn't exist? While the goal is to be TV-first fan friendly, the whole point of a section titled "comparison between books and TV series" is to provide information and comparison on what was changed in adaptation and how this affects the narrative. Do you oppose having "in the books" sections for the episode guide?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:54, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Not at all about the difference. It was just the asides about whether the shows rationals for the changes were "good enough" or "made that character better" or stuff like that. I just think something along the lines (unsure on the exact wording) of "Yara Greyjoy was named Asha Greyjoy in the novels. The showrunners have stated that they renamed the character since they felt Asha is too similar to another character's name, Osha, and wanted to avoid confusion." The parts about whether you think Osha's name should have been instead because of her status versus Asha's importance or that the pronouncations aren't that similar to cause confusion are totally valid for you, that that's just your own take and not what the point of the article is, right? CestWhat (talk) 05:21, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that was pretty clear. Still, are you saying that you think it would be wrong to even have the basic line, "ironically, Asha Greyjoy is a more prominent character than Osha the wildling in the books"? Because she simply is, and that isn't meant as a negative; TV fans sometimes don't understand who major characters are and who are one-shots (i.e. the Night's Watch guards in the Prologue don't turn out to be terribly important). Sorry if I got frustrated it's very late and I'm posting tired. But are there other tone things you want changed? (apart from the Robb section, I know I need to get on that).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 05:28, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Book Osha's role within the story being less prominent then TV Osha would go in the Osha section and kind of redundant in the Yara's name change section, no? CestWhat (talk) 07:24, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Robert and Cersei's son

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the novels differ here too. Book Cersei gets pregnant by Robert and takes something to cause an abortion. TV Cersei gives birth to Robert's natural son who later dies and then Cersei starts her affair with Jaime. Both TV Cersei and TV Robert are genuinely grief-stricken over his death. CestWhat (talk) 02:53, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that, but it isn't a fundamental change to the overall character of "Cersei" or "Robert", enough to list it here. This isn't meant to be an utterly comprehensive list, just things that drastically change the character dynamics. Thus that stillborn child not being in the books is mentioned in the "in the books" section for Cersei and Robert, but would only add confusion here.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:31, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I think a human being existing in TV and not being in books is pretty different. Cersei is so into hating Robert that she has an abortion to stop from having his son. TV Cersei gives birth and loves that baby and grieves with Robert over his death and only after his death does she decide to not bear Robert's children anymore and start her affair with Jaime.CestWhat (talk) 04:41, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
They never said that's what started the affair with Jaime (indeed the books say it was going on since they were children experimenting around), just that Cersei was willing to try putting that on hold for the first year or so of her marriage before it became obvious it wasn't working out.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:46, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's in the scene where Cersei tells Ned about the baby boy's death and then starting the affair with Jaime. CestWhat (talk) 04:52, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

No. She was saying that's when things resumed with Jaime. Crud, we've run into this problem every now and again on this wiki: someone fixating on an utterly literal interpretation of a character's lines, to the point that it contradicts things established by the books and implied by the rest of the series itself. Just the other day you were convinced that Alannys Greyjoy was dead based on the wording of her daughter's comment that "we always survived our father but loved our mother"...even though by the same logic, their father would be dead too, because both use the past tense.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:58, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't convinced about Alannys Greyjoy and the only part I changed was "is married" to "was married" which doesn't change the meaning of the article in any way. But Cersei's backstory about having a child by Robert that she actually loved is different then the book version where she had abortion. That wasn't implied by the series, it's outrighted stated. CestWhat (talk) 05:05, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Well actually I was kind of on the fence but I think you're right; I'll add stuff in about that tomorrow. I didn't consider a stillbirth to be "a human being existing" if it never did any living on its own; complicated by the fact that we were never even given a name for it. So I treated it as more of an extension of the Cersei article. Whatever, it's worth mentioning.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 05:09, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I forgetting the wording, but it was something about "he died" which means he wasn't a stillbirth (you have to be alive to die) and for all we know, he could have been 5 hours old or 5 years old. It would fit into the stretch the show makes in years between when AGOT starts and Robert's Rebellion. TV Joffrey obviously wasn't born into a few years into Robert and Cersei's marriage (versus Book Joffrey being born not that long after Robert's Rebellion) so the son might be a fill-in since it would be noticed that King and Queen are childless for all those years. That's just my own fanfic theory I guess. CestWhat (talk) 05:19, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
...yeah I need to rewatch that scene to get the exact wording. Yeah, actually that theory makes a lot of sense; need to explain Cersei having a child the first year of marriage without it being Joffrey because of the added two years.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 05:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
There's another scene with Catelyn in 1.02 where Cersei mentions that he was taken away by fever although he struggle before hand. Catelyn says she never knew about Cersei's first-born dying (personally that's odd since the first pregnancy of the Queen would be a big deal). There's this one with Robert. I feel like there is a scene somewhere where it's mentioned that Cersei's dead first-born son's hair was dark brown hair which gets Ned Stark a-thunkin' CestWhat (talk) 05:48, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed mistaken, Cersei and Robert's child was not stillborn, but "died of a fever", which means it survived at least some time after birth, rendering the controversy over how to treat a stillborn character moot. I have asked Werthead about how to handle this new "character".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:41, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Minor and Big changes

Cersei and the "unborn Baratheon" baby? lesser change, pretty much implied in some of the books in which Cersei says she ate Robert's semen after he finished on her face or mouth and she was delighted with the notion of eating Robert's offspring and him being none the wiser.

​Osha and Yara/Asha? its the same bloody character with a different name.

​Robb/Talisa stuff? as long as we don't get a JUDGMENT (re: BAD, WRONG, GOOD, POSITIVE, NEGATIVE) and the accompanying words (like Mary Sue or Flanderization or something along those lines), evertying is ok. PERIODGonzalo84 (talk) 09:02, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki