Faelco said:
TheDarkShape said: Screw the books. The show and books are completely different animals, and basing your enjoyment of the show on how much of the book content is directly ported over is silly.
|
I don't get why "it's silly". If you know an awesome story, with great characters in a huge world, and see an adaptation butchering a lot of what you liked, it's not silly to be disappointed. For me, the problem is not that the show is different from the books, it's that the last season is bad compared to the books. So I'm disappointed in season 5, even if I liked the previous seasons and their changes.
And even about the differences, we've seen a lot of "debates" for other adaptations like LOTR or the terrible Eragon, based on their differences with the books. Imagine an Harry Potter adaptation as different from the source material as GoT. It would be a huge sh*tstorm on the Internet...
|
It already *was* a huge shitstorm on the internet. In the time after Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was released, book-purists lost their minds.
Here's the trouble: the impression I get is that y'all don't want good television or good films, you just want staged readings of the books; you (and by you, I mean the movement at large) simply want to watch and not have to read anymore.
I love A Song of Ice and Fire. I love Game of Thrones. But the success of one has nothing to do with the success of the other. Just make the best television you can, fealty to your source material be damned.
Tell me: which is the better movie, Twilight or The Shining? Because one is an amazingly faithful adaptation, and the other is a bastardization of its source that also happens to be a cinematic masterpiece.