Game of Thrones (Not For Prudes/Boobies are bad mmkay?)

[Computron]

In the context of the TV show, I think it would have been a bit jarring to include the "Where do whores go" conversation at the end. The show has been more about Tyrion trying to prove to his dad that he is deserving of being called son and heir, and the trial finally destroyed that last bit of familial connection. Being forced to marry Sansa and losing all credit for saving King's Landing bent that connection terribly, but having Tywin immediately railroad Tyrion at his trial broke it completely.

Those events are clear and obvious in the TV show whereas his first marriage is not. In the context of the show, having Tyrion go against his father makes much more sense in the context of Shae and the trial, rather than long term revenge for his first marriage.

As for that "other" thing that didn't happen, I think that was more of a contractual thing than anything else. But if it is a matter of storyline, then to be honest, is that character really necessary? What does she do in the book exactly other than act as a vehicle for reader catharsis?

I think the show is doing an admirable job of distilling the plot points that matter and push the story forward, and excising those points that, while memorable, don't actually do anything.

As examples, compressing the roles of Gendry and Edric Storm into one character; Robb and Talisa making a much better case for Robb breaking his oaths rather than Jeyne "out of nowhere'sville" Westerling; Brienne and the Hound's fight etc.

[Best First]

i think sometimes it is the case that things are not bad or wrong just that they are jarring for those who have read the books -don't have a particular issue with Brienne vs the Hound for example but it caught me out because it wasn't in the books.