|
Guy A. Person posted:You can probably cut a ton of already introduced characters by that logic; Hodor or Pod are not likely more important that Aegon or Quentyn.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
meristem posted:Well, that's what happened to Mance and Barristan Selmy. Although there is a key difference - Hodor and Pod are parts of other characters' posses, Aegon would require a posse of his own. Yeah, exactly, and those are better examples than what I came up with anyway. The real reason you don't have Quentyn and Aegon and all the Greyjoy brothers is because we are 6 seasons in and you're not going to balloon out the cast that drastically. That
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
So instead of ballooning a rapidly dwindling cast we get an entire arc of sand snakes. I dont honestly care about anything that the showrunners have to say about the series at this point. Honestly no real reason to watch season six unless it starts with a half hour apology and them actually delivering on the stuff people want to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
They actually doubled the relevance and screen time of the sand snakes and the Grey Worm romance which was barely in the books in the former and thw latter is too retarded for even GRRM. their reluctance to cast Victarion or Manderly represents everything wrong with TV now. They might as well not have cast Oberyn then, he never really mattered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
A full summary of every season 6 spoiler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I can see some stuff that has happened in the show happening, but in different ways. Stannis dies, but not after having his army smashed my Ramsey for example. It's kind of like Scott Pilgrim, as O'Malley was writing the last volume as the movie was being made. Both have Scott ending up with Ramona, but the way they got there is way different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Yeah it was a bit weird to see Stannis, renowned got his tactical and strategic skills, decide to press a suicidal attack on a fortified position with his badly diminished and demoralised army, and then fail to do any scouting at all and have his army ambushed and demolished as it straggled out of the forest. I'll be surprised if that's how it plays out in the books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Yeah it was a bit weird to see Stannis, renowned got his tactical and strategic skills, decide to press a suicidal attack on a fortified position with his badly diminished and demoralised army, and then fail to do any scouting at all and have his army ambushed and demolished as it straggled out of the forest. I'll be surprised if that's how it plays out in the books. What I'm guessing is that regardless of who wins that battle, they get swept by the Others not long afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Yeah it was a bit weird to see Stannis, renowned got his tactical and strategic skills, decide to press a suicidal attack on a fortified position with his badly diminished and demoralised army, and then fail to do any scouting at all and have his army ambushed and demolished as it straggled out of the forest. I'll be surprised if that's how it plays out in the books. He made a sacrifice to the Lord of Light though! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Shireen is going to live in the books. At least until the others kill everyone. Ugh such a waste, Shireen was the best child actor on the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Shireen is going to die. Stannis will make her a sacrifice in an effort to mimic how Azor Ahai killed Nissa Nissa. The show didn't include the details of the prophecy, probably because it's a distraction and Mel's misunderstanding, anyway. Well, anyhow. According to a nerd at WOTW, today is an event during which for the past two years HBO announced the premiere date. So, maybe expect that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Didn't D&D make a blog post that boiled down to "Well Gurm told us that Stannis was going to sacrifice his daughter, so don't blame our writing!" almost immediately after episode 9 had been released and people were complaining?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Didn't D&D make a blog post that boiled down to "Well Gurm told us that Stannis was going to sacrifice his daughter, so don't blame our writing!" almost immediately after episode 9 had been released and people were complaining? Well, it didn't go exactly like that, in the 'behind the episode' segment that was released after the episode they confirmed that the gurm told them that Shireen gets burned alive, the circumstances surrounding the sacrifice were not discussed beyond that and it's pretty obvious that in the books it won't be Stannis who does it (he's nowhere near, she's at Castle Black with Mel and Selyse), it was also not in response to any complaints as that segment likely got recorded weeks if not months in advance. Edit: Nearly forgot the two funniest bits, in response to D&D's reveal in the behind the episode segment Elio & Linda had a massive fit and claimed it was tantamount to spitting in the eye of book readers everywhere and vowed to never watch those segments and to stop watching the show or some poo poo, when asked about the reveal in his not-a-blog GRRM got super pissed off as mentioning the show is verbotten on his blog but he made a frowny face and said that he will only comment about events that actually happened in the books he's already released. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Yeah, if Stannis is supposed to burn Shireen in the books, it would have to be in circumstances completely divorced from what was portrayed in the show and at a much later timeframe (i.e. after the defeat of the Boltons, because all of the relevant characters are so far removed from each other and the only way Stannis and Shireen would reunite at this point in the books is if he took Winterfell and then sent for her at the Wall). This raises the question of why the showrunners would bring what is clearly mid-to-late TWOW, and possibly even ADOS material, into Season 5. The show then further muddies the waters by having Brienne kill Stannis like ten minutes into the next episode. Does that happen too? When? How? Again, all the relevant characters are so far removed from each other that the circumstances would have to be completely different and would have to occur really far down the line. Did the showrunners hate Stannis that much and wanted to end his story as quickly as possible and as ignominious as possible (the idea being that if Stannis was going to burn Shireen in the books, his sole heir, it would be need to be to achieve something more substantial than inducing a thaw and that, if he is going to be crushed in battle for Brienne to find dying in the woods, it's going to be against someone other than Ramsay, his Twenty Good Men, and his infinite cheat code army out of nowhere)? The answer is "probably". The end result is you can't trust what the show portrays to be true to the books anymore because every thing is so contradictory and so poorly hacked together. I still maintain that Shireen will be burned by Melisandre at the Wall, Stannis will win against the Boltons, and that if Stannis is going to get crushed in battle it is going to be against a revived Jon, whose army of wildlings and northmen will be further bolstered by former members of Stannis' own army who defected to Jon upon the revelation that he's the real Azor Ahai. I also believe Stannis' downfall won't mean his death but rather his push toward becoming the Night's King but I acknowledge that this is especially controversial so ignore this if you must. I don't know if Brienne may or may not play any role in Stannis' actual death because it's just so far from the book material that it's impossible to discern how they might cross paths again. Does Stannis come south or does Brienne go north? The former can't happen until Stannis takes Winterfell and establishes himself in the north, and there's no guarantee that will even happen at all without something going disastrously wrong sometime after he defeats the Boltons in the upcoming battle. If it's the latter and Brienne goes north, why? The only reason would be to go save a Stark sister, most likely Sansa but I suppose she could also hear news of Jeyne Poole and believe that she is Arya, but Sansa won't be going north until after she marries Harry the Heir and that's dependent on the marriage going off without the hitch and Sansa not getting kidnapped by Shadrich before that happens (and he would bring her south!) and Jeyne is being sent to Braavos so, like I said, it's impossible to tell. I wouldn't count on Lady Stoneheart honoring any part of Brienne's oath ether since Lady Stoneheart is a vengeful revenant that disregards the validity of any oath following her death. The reason I believe things happened like they did in the show is that the showrunners honestly, truly, legitimately hate Stannis and wanted to get rid of him and add some contrived drama to what would otherwise be an even more lackluster episode nine in what was already a lackluster season. In It For The Tank fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Or maybe they just wanted to thin the cast/plot a bit before whatever gets introduced in s6 whilst knowing that stannis goes nowhere and Mel needs to be at the wall Not everything is some kind of hate gently caress to the people that enjoy individual story lines more than others
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Theres shitloads of reasons why Stannis was written the way he was. "The showrunners hate him" is probably the dumbest though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Bit hard to justify getting rid of Stannis in order to thin the cast/plot because he goes nowhere when Season 5 saw the triumphant debut of the totally necessary Sand Snakes and Dorne. I wonder what essential storylines featuring the Sand Snakes are to come.Gorn Myson posted:Theres shitloads of reasons why Stannis was written the way he was. "The showrunners hate him" is probably the dumbest though. I agree, it was dumb of the showrunners to let their biases affect how they adapted the show. 
In It For The Tank fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:Bit hard to justify getting rid of Stannis in order to thin the cast/plot because he goes nowhere when Season 5 saw the triumphant debut of the totally necessary Sand Snakes and Dorne. I wonder what essential storylines featuring the Sand Snakes are to come. None. They killed myrcella. Thy will be background noise in any future Dorne plots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
hanales posted:None. They killed myrcella. Thy will be background noise in any future Dorne plots. While I hope you're right, I don't think that will be the case. Also, if they truly are regulated to background noise, it makes it even more pointless that they were introduced in the first place when it was Ellaria who poisoned Myrcella and nothing the Sand Snakes did or said mattered. If Jaime and Bronn (assuming you had to keep the storyline the first place) were apprehended by Areo immediately and met Ellaria in jail rather than the Sand Snakes, nothing would change and you would lose a lot of what made Dorne so bad last season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Sometimes you want the good girl but need the bad pussy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:I agree, it was dumb of the showrunners to let their biases affect how they adapted the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Just noticed this on the wiki: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:[...] The reason I believe things happened like they did in the show is that the showrunners honestly, truly, legitimately hate Stannis and wanted to get rid of him and add some contrived drama to what would otherwise be an even more lackluster episode nine in what was already a lackluster season. The only role of Stannis in the books is first to give Tyrion a chance to prove himself in a battle and then to bring Melisandre and Davos over to the North. Then he's free to fall, as father and king. The show just hastened his demise by a season, to make way for Euron, the Ironborn and endgame material. As for the Sand Snakes - I think that Olenna travels this season to Dorne, doesn't she? If so, hello at last to the Southern anti-Cersei alliance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Just noticed this on the wiki: Plz. His eye for detail is like no other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I think it was also probably a cost cutting measure. You get rid of a major actor's expenses by killing him off, plus the rest of his retinue. They probably needed to free up some money for the Greyjoy stuff and knew Stannis wasn't going to be a big player in the long run, so just sped things up for the sake of the production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
The show ditched Bran for an entire season and ditched the entirety of Sansa's plot line in favor of a plot line of a minor character that occurs in a more central location, it's obvious that they are trying to limit the amount of plots and have more characters interact with one another by synthesizing new plot lines. Even the dreaded pussy snakes were just foil to get Jaime and everyone's favorite side kick around Ellaria, Doran, Trystane and Myrcella. Bitching about the terrible sand snakes and how pointless they were is well and good but to actually argue that their inclusion demonstrates that D&D didn't kill Stannis off to save on screentime you kinda have to ignore every other major character that was shoehorned into the Dorne plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:I still maintain that Shireen will be burned by Melisandre at the Wall, I sincerely doubt that anyone but Stannis will burn her. He's been hedging his bets on Melisandre throughout the books, letting her advise him and use her magic against his enemies, but never committing to her religion or following her blindly. In aSoS, he was willing to sacrifice an innocent child when convinced it was necessary, but had the choice taken from him. Shireen, in addition to being an innocent child, is also his daughter and, more importantly, his heir and legacy. What could the culmination of his character arc be, if not him being asked to sacrifice the one thing he values most?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Bias against a fictional character? Yeah? Aren't there characters you like or dislike? Kajeesus posted:I sincerely doubt that anyone but Stannis will burn her. He's been hedging his bets on Melisandre throughout the books, letting her advise him and use her magic against his enemies, but never committing to her religion or following her blindly. In aSoS, he was willing to sacrifice an innocent child when convinced it was necessary, but had the choice taken from him. Shireen, in addition to being an innocent child, is also his daughter and, more importantly, his heir and legacy. What could the culmination of his character arc be, if not him being asked to sacrifice the one thing he values most? While I can certainly see the narrative appeal of Stannis burning Shireen (you can rattle off any number of classical or mythical dramatic stories about a father killing their offspring for the greater good), the biggest sticking point is that he physically can't. Shireen and Melisandre are at the Wall and Stannis is campaigning and not far outside Winterfell. Either he wins and brings Shireen to Winterfell, at which point he has no reason to burn her (unless something mindblowingly dramatic happened suddenly, like the Wall fell and the Others attacked, at which point it's like... why would the show give up that potential drama to do it for comparatively lower stakes in Season 5?), or he loses and dies there. I suppose he could lose but survive, run back to the Wall, and then burn Shireen but I feel like in the meantime Melisandre would burn Shireen first (since she has the opportunity since she's right there, the pressing need because Jon just died, and also the willingness to burn a child) and it relies on the Wall remaining stable long enough for a broken Stannis to make it back there. Besides, if Stannis fled to the Wall and burned Shireen, you would also be basically repeating the Edric Storm storylike in ASOS all over again. And then what happens? Does the Wall melt instead of the blizzard thawing? Actually, that would be really loving funny. In It For The Tank fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Sometimes you want the good girl but need the bad pussy Why couldn't they have written as "You want a good kitty, but need a bad pussy"? Would that have been so loving hard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I sincerely doubt that anyone but Stannis will burn her. He's been hedging his bets on Melisandre throughout the books, letting her advise him and use her magic against his enemies, but never committing to her religion or following her blindly. In aSoS, he was willing to sacrifice an innocent child when convinced it was necessary, but had the choice taken from him. Shireen, in addition to being an innocent child, is also his daughter and, more importantly, his heir and legacy. What could the culmination of his character arc be, if not him being asked to sacrifice the one thing he values most? Selyse is also much more full retard lord of light than Stannis in the books, I can see the idea coming from her brain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Just noticed this on the wiki: It's kind of funny because Grover, Elmo, and Kermit are all completely legitimate historical names, but it's basically impossible to hear the last two without just thinking of muppets. Grover is only on the fence because of Norquist and a President.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:Yeah? Aren't there characters you like or dislike?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:(unless something mindblowingly dramatic happened suddenly, like the Wall fell and the Others attacked, at which point it's like... why would the show give up that potential drama to do it for comparatively lower stakes in Season 5?) This is the theory I personally find most convincing. The showrunners could've chosen not to do it for any number of reasons, but there's a lot more that's suggestive of Stannis winning against the Boltons rather than losing, and at the same time it makes the most thematic sense for him to do it personally rather than his daughter simply being a sacrifice to revive Jon or whatever. It'd just make way more sense to him to feel he needs to sacrifice his daughter for the sake of "the true battle" than it does for him to do it to melt some snow, and Melisandre doing it on her own doesn't really say anything new about the characters. This article is what convinced me it makes the most sense: https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/stannis-endgame-book-vs-show/ I also agree with him that the likely reason they did it the way they did in the show is because D&D may care more about the bottom line than they do about what makes sense for the characters or why it's happening a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:So D&D wrote Stannis into the show, cast a charismatic actor to play him, kept him around for four seasons and gave him a lot of screen time specifically because they hated him? Hes a fictional character. If they hated him so much they could have written him out at any point in the show. Or just not cast him in the first place. They kept him around for four seasons but generally portrayed him unfavorably in a way that was untrue to his characterization in the books and emphasized his negative traits wherever possible (like when he planned to kill Davos even after he read the Night's Watch letter, how he burns many more people in the show than he does in the books and for less legitimate reasons, and how he spent most of Season 4 threatening Davos at every opportunity), spent a lot of time describing their negative interpretation of the character in the behind the scenes features (example), and they also specifically did not tell the charismatic actor that they (I agree, Dillane's amazing, just the writing isn't) much about the history of the character beyond the fact that he "won a few battles" and apparently he had to fish to get even that. As for the last part, I could turn it around and ask the same question to the people that insist that he was killed only to cull the cast and save money. Evidently he had some essential part to play that didn't allow them to kill him any earlier. That said, I'm still not sure that there aren't important things that Stannis does in the books that the show is willing to pass off onto other characters, explaining his premature death. Specifically, the defeat of the Boltons. It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that book Stannis beats the Boltons but that they had him lose because they wanted to keep their favorite character Ramsay around for another season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I think the real answer is that D&D are not very good writers and forget about things like consistency in a character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or it was just too much on a TV budget. They needed Stannis' plot in the show because that's their way of getting Melisandre to the wall to resurrect Jon. He's pretty much a glorified plot device. In It For The Tank posted:They kept him around for four seasons but generally portrayed him unfavorably in a way that was untrue to his characterization in the books and emphasized his negative traits wherever possible (like when he planned to kill Davos even after he read the Night's Watch letter, how he burns many more people in the show than he does in the books and for less legitimate reasons, and how he spent most of Season 4 threatening Davos at every opportunity), spent a lot of time describing their negative interpretation of the character in the behind the scenes features (example), and they also specifically did not tell the charismatic actor that they (I agree, Dillane's amazing, just the writing isn't) much about the history of the character beyond the fact that he "won a few battles" and apparently he had to fish to get even that. That seems like such a big change to make. If Stannis does beat the Boltons in the book, then what does a resurrected Jon do? He's not going to march against Stannis. I guess Jon could end up going to Winterfell to meet Stannis for whatever reason and then that's when the Others/Littlefinger attack whereas in the show it's the same except minus Stannis add Ramsay. Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:It's kind of funny because Grover, Elmo, and Kermit are all completely legitimate historical names, but it's basically impossible to hear the last two without just thinking of muppets. Grover is only on the fence because of Norquist and a President. I'm hoping there is a Lord Snuffleupagus in tWoW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
What do you mean there's indications that stannis will beat the boltons? The pink letter is all we have in the books and it looks like it was legit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What do you mean there's indications that stannis will beat the boltons? The pink letter is all we have in the books and it looks like it was legit. What makes you think it was legit? It's pretty clearly a fake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
In It For The Tank posted:They kept him around for four seasons but generally portrayed him unfavorably in a way that was untrue to his characterization in the books and emphasized his negative traits wherever possible (like when he planned to kill Davos even after he read the Night's Watch letter, how he burns many more people in the show than he does in the books and for less legitimate reasons, and how he spent most of Season 4 threatening Davos at every opportunity), spent a lot of time describing their negative interpretation of the character in the behind the scenes features (example), and they also specifically did not tell the charismatic actor that they (I agree, Dillane's amazing, just the writing isn't) much about the history of the character beyond the fact that he "won a few battles" and apparently he had to fish to get even that. It's also pretty weird how they didn't include anything akin to the Pink Letter even though in the show Jon and Ramsay actually will fight. In the books there's a set up for a confrontation that may never happen(though admittedly the letter itself is likely to be a forgery), while in the show Jon never says he's going to go North and take Winterfell even though that's apparently exactly what he's going to do when he comes back from the dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:13
|
|