Alexander Supertramp wrote: True story, I think it's hard though. I don't think I've ever had a productive discussion with someone about a comparison between an adaptation and its source material. Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, this...whatever it is, people tend to think of them as the same entity and just end up being angry that one is different from the other.
Anyway, pretty much what you said.
"Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter"
You haven't read the books, you're not a real fan.
Alexander Supertramp wrote: True story, I think it's hard though. I don't think I've ever had a productive discussion with someone about a comparison between an adaptation and its source material. Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, this...whatever it is, people tend to think of them as the same entity and just end up being angry that one is different from the other.
Anyway, pretty much what you said.
"Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter"
You haven't read the books, you're not a real fan.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but Jesus Christ, this is exactly my point. I've read all of them, the Hobbit about 15 times and Rings at least 5.
Alexander Supertramp wrote: True story, I think it's hard though. I don't think I've ever had a productive discussion with someone about a comparison between an adaptation and its source material. Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, this...whatever it is, people tend to think of them as the same entity and just end up being angry that one is different from the other.
Anyway, pretty much what you said.
"Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter"
You haven't read the books, you're not a real fan.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but Jesus Christ, this is exactly my point. I've read all of them, the Hobbit about 15 times and Rings at least 5.
Not sarcastic at all. I feel that way. Call me an annoying geek, but when someone says "I love the Harry Potter movies"... that's ok, but HP is a series of books. Same with LOTR.
I've read all the HP books at least once a year, I think, since they came out.
I got into LOTR late in life, but read the books (including The Hobbit) about a year before before the movies, and have read them all many times.
I also like and have watched all the movies a few times.
And yes, there are LOTS of differences between the books and the movies.
There are always differences. What can be imagined in the mind of the reader can't always be shown on a screen. Books can also be far more detailed. The critical aspect for me has always been how faithful to the general story and if that deviates much, whether the book author was involved. I was upset about the HHTG movie until I found out it was from a script DNA had written himself.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.
Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.
...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
Alexander Supertramp wrote: True story, I think it's hard though. I don't think I've ever had a productive discussion with someone about a comparison between an adaptation and its source material. Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, this...whatever it is, people tend to think of them as the same entity and just end up being angry that one is different from the other.
Anyway, pretty much what you said.
"Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter"
You haven't read the books, you're not a real fan.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but Jesus Christ, this is exactly my point. I've read all of them, the Hobbit about 15 times and Rings at least 5.
Not sarcastic at all. I feel that way. Call me an annoying geek, but when someone says "I love the Harry Potter movies"... that's ok, but HP is a series of books. Same with LOTR.
I've read all the HP books at least once a year, I think, since they came out.
I got into LOTR late in life, but read the books (including The Hobbit) about a year before before the movies, and have read them all many times.
I also like and have watched all the movies a few times.
And yes, there are LOTS of differences between the books and the movies.
Did you not enjoy True Detective because it took liberties with the King in Yellow? Was the Lion King a bad Hamlet adaptation because it used lions instead of people?
I mean, enjoy things as you will. But why do you feel like you can't be a fan of something without an exhaustive knowledge of the source material?
I've seen and liked a lot of Shakespeare adaptations and never read the original source.
-
I did say it's ok to like the movies, but if you've only seen the movies, you know only a fraction of what happens, and some of the thing you know from the movies never even happened.
-
Oh, and one more thing, I've only read The Silmarillion... maybe twice, I'm only sure about once. A movie, or six, would be impossible.
I've tried to read The Silmarillion as a first crack at LOR. A mistake, it seems, because it's an expansion meant for those already familiar with the works, making it a tough slog for the ignorant reader.
Now I've got a set of the movie-cover paperbacks that I got for free - much easier to read.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.
Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.
...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
ukimalefu wrote: True Detective had a book? didn't know. Loved it.
I've seen and liked a lot of Shakespeare adaptations and never read the original source.
-
I did say it's ok to like the movies, but if you've only seen the movies, you know only a fraction of what happens, and some of the thing you know from the movies never even happened.
The Yellow King is a book of short stories. True Detective references it often and plays with a lot of its themes. In many senses an adaptation but also a discrete piece of work.
If you only watch, for example, Harry Potter movies and don't read the books, you don't have the same immersive sense of the world but you do get a story from start to finish.
If it's done well it doesn't have less merit, it's something different.
Again, enjoy something as you will but there's no 'correct' version of something in these cases. Judge them on their own merits.
user wrote: I've tried to read The Silmarillion as a first crack at LOR. A mistake, it seems, because it's an expansion meant for those already familiar with the works, making it a tough slog for the ignorant reader.
Now I've got a set of the movie-cover paperbacks that I got for free - much easier to read.
The Silmarillion was rough. I struggled through it and retained basically nothing.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:Did you not enjoy True Detective because it took liberties with the King in Yellow?
Lolwut. Referencing lines from some of the stories in The King in Yellow is way different from saying that True Detective is an adaptation of it. Have you ever read it? How is it any kind of a version of those stories? If you really want to get down on it, TD is more of an adaptation of Ligotti's philosophical writing.
And there is a big difference in basing a story from another work and making it "new" (like say, Lion King and Hamlet or Clueless and Emma) vs outright saying it is a direct adaptation like LOTR as a movie instead of the written word.
Remember we're a minority and every one of us counts.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:Did you not enjoy True Detective because it took liberties with the King in Yellow?
Lolwut. Referencing lines from some of the stories in The King in Yellow is way different from saying that True Detective is an adaptation of it. Have you ever read it? How is it any kind of a version of those stories? If you really want to get down on it, TD is more of an adaptation of Ligotti's philosophical writing.
And there is a big difference in basing a story from another work and making it "new" (like say, Lion King and Hamlet or Clueless and Emma) vs outright saying it is a direct adaptation like LOTR as a movie instead of the written word.
I have read the King in Yellow. True Detective does more than referencing a few lines. I felt like the earlier episodes set you up to believe it was an homage (and made me think there would be true supernatural aspects to the show) before taking it in a different direction.
But I was making a point about how closely these things need to be tied to each other to be considered worthy or correct or right or whatever.
I've reading the first book in e-format, mostly in downtimes at work. It's on my phone and I can dig it out of my pocket for a quick read. Some minor differences: the old guy gets executed, not the young one; the horse-faced reference to Ayra. I'll try to not get too far but it's easy for me to get caught up in reading good novels and I have a series of 5 of the books.
As far as the show goes, I believe I'll keep watching until they finally kill off a character that I like far too much to want to continue. I'm afraid that it's bound to happen. Now comes the long hiatus. Maybe I'll revive this thread next year.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.
Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.
...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
DukeofNuke wrote: Lena Headey deserves an Emmy for her walk of atonement. (Yeah, I know they used a body double, but still ... )
I was rather hoping to see her bloody revenge tonight, something to look forward to next year I guess.
Me too!
Nah. She totally screwed herself. She dissed Jaime. She never valued Tyrion's accomplishments and even resented her father's direct counsel. She's always been so concerned with her own power that she became blinded to her family's needs. Her hatred of Margaery is mostly because she sees her as an enemy, and because of her jealousy she fails to see the value of her influence on her son, the realm and the city. She has tossed aside everyone she could have used and manipulated and instead made enemies and created powers that now are in conflict with her own needs and wants. She sucks as a ruler, and instead of making plans she only reacts to perceived threats. Her paranoia has done her in, and she is responsible for her own fall.
Don't confuse my bloodlust and wish to see horrible and painful death to the religious nuts as liking her. Also, the show needs more of Margaery and that crazy Dornish girl.
Ya, this is a challenge. I hate the aristocracy a lot but I think I hate religious nut bags worse. Best case: They all die.
Not even duct tape will fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.
DukeofNuke wrote: Lena Headey deserves an Emmy for her walk of atonement. (Yeah, I know they used a body double, but still ... )
I was rather hoping to see her bloody revenge tonight, something to look forward to next year I guess.
Me too!
Nah. She totally screwed herself. She dissed Jaime. She never valued Tyrion's accomplishments and even resented her father's direct counsel. She's always been so concerned with her own power that she became blinded to her family's needs. Her hatred of Margaery is mostly because she sees her as an enemy, and because of her jealousy she fails to see the value of her influence on her son, the realm and the city. She has tossed aside everyone she could have used and manipulated and instead made enemies and created powers that now are in conflict with her own needs and wants. She sucks as a ruler, and instead of making plans she only reacts to perceived threats. Her paranoia has done her in, and she is responsible for her own fall.
Don't confuse my bloodlust and wish to see horrible and painful death to the religious nuts as liking her. Also, the show needs more of Margaery and that crazy Dornish girl.
Ya, this is a challenge. I hate the aristocracy a lot but I think I hate religious nut bags worse. Best case: They all die.
You might be the only people who's wish for this show is fufilled.
DukeofNuke wrote: Lena Headey deserves an Emmy for her walk of atonement. (Yeah, I know they used a body double, but still ... )
I was rather hoping to see her bloody revenge tonight, something to look forward to next year I guess.
Me too!
Nah. She totally screwed herself. She dissed Jaime. She never valued Tyrion's accomplishments and even resented her father's direct counsel. She's always been so concerned with her own power that she became blinded to her family's needs. Her hatred of Margaery is mostly because she sees her as an enemy, and because of her jealousy she fails to see the value of her influence on her son, the realm and the city. She has tossed aside everyone she could have used and manipulated and instead made enemies and created powers that now are in conflict with her own needs and wants. She sucks as a ruler, and instead of making plans she only reacts to perceived threats. Her paranoia has done her in, and she is responsible for her own fall.
Don't confuse my bloodlust and wish to see horrible and painful death to the religious nuts as liking her. Also, the show needs more of Margaery and that crazy Dornish girl.
Ya, this is a challenge. I hate the aristocracy a lot but I think I hate religious nut bags worse. Best case: They all die.
You might be the only people who's wish for this show is fufilled.
I know! Awesome, right? Almost everyone in GOTs is despicable in some way or another so let the blood flow.
Not even duct tape will fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.
So, back in Season 3 -- what the hell happened to Edmure Tully who got married during the Red Wedding? I kind of thought he'd hear about his friend's death and be all "WTF, Walter Frey?" Did he get dragged off to his death, is he living in marital bliss?
"Hey, I gotta be me. Don't like it, don't read it." - Schnicky
Robert B. wrote: So, back in Season 3 -- what the hell happened to Edmure Tully who got married during the Red Wedding? I kind of thought he'd hear about his friend's death and be all "WTF, Walter Frey?" Did he get dragged off to his death, is he living in marital bliss?
Basically Edmure Tully is the sperm donor for the continuation of the Tully line under the total control of Walder Frey. If Edmure gives Walder enough grandchildren to "guarantee" that at least one of them will survive to adulthood, then Edmure will be likely become the last Tully death from the Red Wedding.
Robert B. wrote: So, back in Season 3 -- what the hell happened to Edmure Tully who got married during the Red Wedding? I kind of thought he'd hear about his friend's death and be all "WTF, Walter Frey?" Did he get dragged off to his death, is he living in marital bliss?
It was his sister (Catelyn Stark) and his nephew (Robb Stark). And yeah, if someone doesn't come save Edmure, he's toast once he has a couple of sons. I think it's intimated that his wine was drugged and that will likely be his fate.
user wrote: I must have missed an explanation - isn't Sansa still married to the dwarf? She's a bigamist or she has cause to claim her marriage to the creep void.
Except for the kid she's undoubtably carrying in her belly by now.
At some point the Maester, or maybe it was the resident priest of Winterfell declared Sansa's marriage to Tyrion null and void, as it was never consummated and he is a traitor and convicted murder on the run. I remember that being mentioned but I can't pinpoint the moment.
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." -Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Harrington could psych out everyone and cut his hair. Even if it didn't grow completely out by the time filming for the next GoT season started, there is make-up.
Asked to chime in on whether fan-favorite character Jon Snow is dead, as he appeared to be at the end of last season, Lombardo echoed the show’s producers, saying, “Dead is dead is dead. He be dead. Yes. Everything I’ve seen, heard and read, he is dead.”
also: he expects the show to wrap at the end of season eight
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
