It seems you're not around as much as usual either.
You mean the actress is better or the character is better?
Jon in the book is more interesting than he is in the series ó part of the reason is the way they changed things around in the series. Maybe they had to dumb things down for this actor.
Mel ó Iíve started the 4th book too. Itís interesting to see how some key things have been changed in the series that make me wonder how they are going to manage some of the important scenes later on. Some of the characters seem to have a different slant in the book than they do in the series too.
The fourth book is not as good as the third but I think it's because he introduces several new characters and we don't see some of our usual characters. The beginning of the fifth book says that he wrote so much for Book 4 that he had to split it into two. So Book 5, of which I've only read about 20 pages, is supposed to have some more of the original characters.
I always like the book version better than the TV/movie version and Game of Thrones
is no exception. I like that season 1 stuck closely to the book. Season 2 has several changes. Some I like, some I don't. I agree that Jon is more interesting in the book than he is on TV but I think that's true of some of the others too.
I mean the character. The actresses are both quite good.
Yes, both actresses are good, especially considering they're two of the younger ones, the two youngest main characters besides Bran, I think.
Isn't it confusing to do both the books and the TV show at the same time? Or - how do I put it - is it really worth it to do both?
I think so. I think it adds another dimension. I like the books better, of course, but the show adds to my imagination of the locales and what characters look like.
I started the books because I had a big period of dead time, and needed something to fill the space. Also, since I only half pay attention to the series, and sometimes fast forward through parts, all the side characters seemed to blend.
So, itís not confusing, but itís interesting to see where and how they changed things for the series. There are so many characters, I guess they had to simplify. But, some of it seems to be done just for the hell of it or to make it spicier or make the women seem more than they are in the books. I donít want to spoil anything for people here who havenít seen all of season two yet. In the books Jon and Rob are teenagers as is Daeneris. She was 15 when she gave birth, and probably that wouldnít get past the censors.
I definitely like that they've aged Jon, Robb and Daenarys on the show. That was definitely the right move.
You're going to have to elaborate Hema. Sansa is a gimp.
No, she's not.
Negative. Sansa starts out a gimp. But her circumstances force her to learn rapidly and she does that admirably well. I think her situation is more perilous in some ways than Arya's and I love the way she learns to lie through her teeth and never lets her guard down. Arya appears to be much more of a fighter/survivor but Sansa is no less- just in a different way and one which I have greater sympathy for.
If you really want someone gimpy,it is Ned Stark and the Stark boys-Robb Stark being the biggest gimp of all.
I agree with this description of Sansa. At times at the beginning, you just want to yell at her to stop being so silly. But she smartens up fast and, although different from her sister, is successful. Even in the first book/season, there are hints that she's going to be okay, like in the scene with Joffrey and the Hound on the ledge after Ned's death. I still think Arya is awesome but I like Sansa.
I like the Jon Stark/Ivan Lendl "expressions" pictures.