A Game of Thrones discussion

I heard in the next seasons of the show they are making huge changes from the books. Here are a few examples of what I have heard. Lady Stoneheart isn't going to be in it. Tyrion and Mormont don't become slaves. And Aegon (Young Griff) and John Cunnington won't be in it. Does anyone know if these rumors are true? If so how do you feel about it?

Ray wrote: "I heard in the next seasons of the show they are making huge changes from the books. Here are a few examples of what I have heard. Lady Stoneheart isn't going to be in it. Tyrion and Mormont don't ..."

Whilst its true stoneheart didnt appear last season there no offical confirmation she wont appear in season 5.
Griff and Tyrion/mormont wont be happening for atleast another season if it happens at all. At this point noone knows since they haven't even finished adapting Feast for the crows.

Ray wrote: how do you feel about it?
I have mixed feelings about the show's recent, and apparently upcoming, departure from Martin's story. I'm interested by it as I'm not just watching what I've read, and thus the show has more of an appeal to me. However, I'm not happy with the show potentially revealing spoilers for the readers awaiting The Winds of Winter .

they have to deviate - if they didn't they'd run out of novel to base the books on...
They're producing the TV series faster than GRRM can write the books :)

Graeme's right-- HBO has committed to seven seasons of GoT. GRRM won't be able finish ASOIAF in a mere three years. He's taking the Robert Jordan route and stretching it out as much as possible. I've seen interviews where GRRM hints at an eighth book...

I predict that GRRM will die before he finishes the series, and they'll bring in someone like Joe Abercrombie to finish it.

I hope they don't bring in Joe Abercrombie... Sadly I really struggled with his book (before they were hanged) I think, the first one of his trilogy... It just felt like a blatant rip off of GRRM's stuff.... :(

"I hope they don't bring in Joe Abercrombie... "
Why would they ?

If you bothered to read the comment above, I was replying to what thecryptile said....

Graeme wrote: "If you bothered to read the comment above, I was replying to what thecryptile said...."

I read both comments, its was pretty much an open question to either of you since you replied...sorry you saw it as some personal slight.

Graeme wrote: "I hope they don't bring in Joe Abercrombie... Sadly I really struggled with his book (before they were hanged) I think, the first one of his trilogy... It just felt like a blatant rip off of GRRM's stuff..."

The First Law trilogy is kind of clunky IMO-- but Abercrombie's writing has improved with practice. The stand-alones are much better than the First Law trilogy.

Marc wrote: "Why would they?"

GRRM likes Joe Abercrombie and promotes his writing. Abercrombie's in all the new GRRM anthologies, and GRRM has recommended the First Law books to his fans as a substitute during the long wait for The Winds of Winter.

ETA: From GRRM's Not A Blog "Just for starts, check out Daniel Abraham (THE LONG PRICE QUARTET, THE DAGGER AND THE COIN, Scott Lynch (the Locke Lamora series), Patrick Rothfuss, Joe Abercrombie (especially BEST SERVED COLD and THE HEROES)... they will keep you turning pages for a good long while, I promise..."
http://grrm.livejournal.com/316785.html

Apologies Mark if I offended there was no perception of slight here on my side, however it may of read that way in my previous reply! Maybe I simply just didn't give Abercrombie enough time.. But I fear I may be digressing the topic of the OP... :)

Apologies Mark if I offended there was no perception of slight here on my side, however it may of read that way in my previous reply! Maybe I simply just didn't give Abercrombie enough time.. But I fear I may be digressing the topic of the OP... :)

Graeme wrote: it just felt like a blatant rip off of GRRM..."
I don't think Joe Abercrombie "ripped off" George R.R. Martin; I'd say his story has much more in common with J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy. Abercrombie seems to teeter on the edge of cliché Tolkienesque fantasy before inserting his own twists; I read this as a witty and almost-parodical story. I won't state specifics, as this isn't a First Law thread and I don't want to spoil the books in any manner, but I personally disagree with the claim that his work is essentially G.R.R.M. revamped.

Graeme wrote: "Apologies Mark if I offended there was no perception of slight here on my side, however it may of read that way in my previous reply! Maybe I simply just didn't give Abercrombie enough time.. But I..."
No worries
For what its worth (and this coming from a big abercrombie fan) Joe would be a terrible choice to finish GRRMs work, whilst i love his stuff its pretty cliché heavy and full of action hero style one liners.
The closest match out of the guys he supports would likely be Daniel Abraham.

I heard that Lady Stoneheart was cut. I'm not sorry about the Tyrion storyline change, as I struggled with it in the last book. Jaime will go to Dorne to do God knows what ( this really bothers me, I loved his chapters in a Feast for Crows, he has grown immensely as a character, and they don't do him justice on the show), The book is the book and the show is the show we have to accept that, however I'm not gonna stop whining about the changes that directly contradicts some characters nature.
Last thought, A Game of Thrones will most likely run for 7 seasons, George is nowhere near finishing WOW, so will most likely start seeing spoilers by next season. It really bothers me that I'm gonna find out the end of this amazingly well crafted and complex series on TV ( and because of repeated character cuts and the butterfly effect, we won't even find out the whole ending) but that's the sad reality.

Well, last I heard they were waffling on whether or not to put Lady Stoneheart in. They had issues a rather flimsy reason for why they hadn't included her in the last episode of season four, and couldn't confirm if she would be in season five. But nothing appeared to be set in stone.

As for everything else they changed up until now, I generally felt it was justifiable - except for everything they did in season four. They introduced so much just to give the characters enough to do, and then had to make sure those changes didn't go anywhere. That just seemed so lame!

Bring her back. Michelle Fairley has already been brought back from the dead in "Resurrection." And she's spending her time there killing Walkers.

What I hated was the lame excuses made for not bringing her back for the end of season four. They said that they didn't want to bring her back for only one scene in the final episode as a "zombie", as if it were somehow beneath her. First off, she's not a zombie, she was resurrected from the dead by Thoros' magic.

And second, they brought Ciarán Hinds - the actor who plays Mance Rayder - back for the last episode. And he was absent for the whole of the fourth season too, last I checked. So I really don't see how this logic pans out.