Explanation of TV Stannis and hope for the future

[bluelip]

It's not about villainous vs. tender moments... book Stannis is pretty darn funny through his sense of exasperated arrogance.

The show doesn't convey this, and I don't expect that to change

[The Onion Kniggit]

Maybe this might just be wishful thinking, but what if Stannis actually legitimizes Jon Snow this season?

[Dragon in the North]

It's not about villainous vs. tender moments... book Stannis is pretty darn funny through his sense of exasperated arrogance.

The show doesn't convey this, and I don't expect that to change

I thought "They don't have enough men between them to raid a pantry" was pretty funny.

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

And I want to be clear, it's not so much a question of "will everyone love my favorite character now" but more of a "will they please do something with him." I think season 5 is the first time in years Stannis will have clear direction. I remember a few people were saying that because of his less then stellar portrayal in season 3 that Stannis wasn't an important end-game character, like the Greyjoys apparently lol.

Also, it's really nice to see unsullied who like Stannis. It warms my heart like the fires of R'hllor. All my unsullied friends who watch the show with me hate him.

[HiroVoid]

I know Manderly maybe cut(or at least replaced), but I really hope they keep Davos's vengeance quote.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

To be honest I'm actually less worried about Stannis than I am about pretty much everything else this season, D$D seem to be backpedaling with their initial negativity towards him and talking about how cool he is and how there'll be more of him in Season 5. It seems like they essentially did their version of "character development" with him, which amounts to "[x character] used to be [good/bad] but now he's [opposite]" out of nowhere in the Season 4 finale. A method they unfortunately also applied to Jaime in Season 4 after building up his book development beautifully in the previous season...but thats neither here nor there.

[TheKitttenGuard]

To be honest I'm actually less worried about Stannis than I am about pretty much everything else this season, D$D seem to be backpedaling with their initial negativity towards him and talking about how cool he is and how there'll be more of him in Season 5. It seems like they essentially did their version of "character development" with him, which amounts to "[x character] used to be [good/bad] but now he's [opposite]" out of nowhere in the Season 4 finale. A method they unfortunately also applied to Jaime in Season 4 after building up his book development beautifully in the previous season...but thats neither here nor there.

D&D is not backtracking on Stannis negativity.

They are doing fine. It just people do not want to see where a character is in the overall story and want him to now he is more "good".

[Poète Lauréat]

Maybe this might just be wishful thinking, but what if Stannis actually legitimizes Jon Snow this season?

Why on earth would he do that?

[BendTheKnee15]

Maybe this might just be wishful thinking, but what if Stannis actually legitimizes Jon Snow this season?

Stannis doesn't kneel to anyone. He's the Mannis

Winterfell is his by right

[Lord Davos Baratheon]

I hated the way Stannis was portrayed in Season 3. He was completely out of character and that scene with Melisandre (Walk of Punishment) was just ridiculous and very poorly written. Maybe the producers do dislike him as some people claim. There was that interview on which Weiss said that Stannis would be "a terrible king", and that he "lacked concern for the smallfolk" (or something of the kind). I guess that's why he went to the Wall and fought the wildling threat and is now trying to take Winterfell from the Boltons.

The sad thing is that they're wasting Stephen Dillane's talent. I mean, the guy is basically Stannis brought to life (minus the legendary jaw). They don't have to make him a creep just because they aren't fond of him.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I hated the way Stannis was portrayed in Season 3. He was completely out of character and that scene with Melisandre (Walk of Punishment) was just ridiculous and very poorly written. Maybe the producers do dislike him as some people claim. There was that interview on which Weiss said that Stannis would be "a terrible king", and that he "lacked concern for the smallfolk" (or something of the kind). I guess that's why he went to the Wall and fought the wildling threat and is now trying to take Winterfell from the Boltons.

The sad thing is that they're wasting Stephen Dillane's talent. I mean, the guy is basically Stannis brought to life (minus the legendary jaw). They don't have to make him a creep just because they aren't fond of him.

Stannis was dejected after BW all the same. You are also are choosing to disregard how his scenes with Selyse, Shireen, and Davos in the cells to weigh against the scenes you do not like.

The Weiss comments are really are pertaining to ACOK when Stannis is met. The interview is related to show and where the story is at that time.

There was really more time spent with Stannis than we had of him ASOS.

[Lord Davos Baratheon]

Stannis was dejected after BW all the same. You are also are choosing to disregard how his scenes with Selyse, Shireen, and Davos in the cells to weigh against the scenes you do not like.

The Weiss comments are really are pertaining to ACOK when Stannis is met. The interview is related to show and where the story is at that time.

There was really more time spent with Stannis than we had of him ASOS.

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward". It is true that Stannis was dejected after BW, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. Yes, some of the scenes of him with his family (especially with Shireen) were good and I'm not gonna say otherwise, because I really enjoyed them myself. It's good that they tried to make him more "human" so to speak; there's no arguing with that. They DID give him considerable screen time if you think about his appearance in ACoK. This is all good; but they also made him hopelessly attached to Melisandre, they also made him look like a man who would give/sacrifice anything in order to claim the throne, even if it means not doing the right thing, the honorable thing. And I just think that's not "worth" the "good" scenes. Forgive me if I do not sound very enlightening. xD

[TheKitttenGuard]

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward". It is true that Stannis was dejected after BW, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. Yes, some of the scenes of him with his family (especially with Shireen) were good and I'm not gonna say otherwise, because I really enjoyed them myself. It's good that they tried to make him more "human" so to speak; there's no arguing with that. They DID give him considerable screen time if you think about his appearance in ACoK. This is all good; but they also made him hopelessly attached to Melisandre, they also made him look like a man who would give/sacrifice anything in order to claim the throne, even if it means not doing the right thing, the honorable thing. And I just think that's not "worth" the "good" scenes. Forgive me if I do not sound very enlightening. xD

The show may oversell Stannis attachment/dependence on Melissandre. I think Stannis fan undersell the relation in the book a good deal.

Stannis used otherworldly powers to kill his brother and at Stormsend on his quest for the throne.

The Gendry/Edric "King's Blood" are just different beings due to medium.

Have your view but it is not due to "D&D hate Stannis".

[Lord Davos Baratheon]

The show may oversell Stannis attachment/dependence on Melissandre. I think Stannis fan undersell the relation in the book a good deal.

Stannis used otherworldly powers to kill his brother and at Stormsend on his quest for the throne.

The Gendry/Edric "King's Blood" are just different beings due to medium.

Have your view but it is not due to "D&D hate Stannis".

But Renly didn't have any claim to the throne. And he'd probably kill his brother with his army. Stannis just decided to act first. That was a very difficult situation: he had to kill Renly, otherwise Renly would kill him.

[TheKitttenGuard]

But Renly didn't have any claim to the throne. And he'd probably kill his brother with his army. Stannis just decided to act first. That was a very difficult situation: he had to kill Renly, otherwise Renly would kill him.

The fact still is he used magical forces to get rid of an oppotent to the throne, who happen to be his brother.

At least Stannis acknowledge this fact on TV. He still has not in a book. I personally like it since to demostrate the "Hard Truths" that Stannis state and expects from others.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

And he'd probably kill his brother with his army. Stannis just decided to act first. That was a very difficult situation: he had to kill Renly, otherwise Renly would kill him.

The fact still is he used magical forces to get rid of an oppotent to the throne, who happen to be his brother.

I'd reword this. Yes, Renly and Stannis were going to fight one another and that is a difficult situation for both of them to be in. It is not the fact that he decided to act first that most readers object to but how he acted. Using black magic isn't the same as facing one another. It isn't right or honest or fair which is rather hypocritical for a man who says fairness and being right is the most important thing. So it's not that "Still he used magic forces" but because he used it that doesn't sit well with some readers. There was nothing Renly could do in his defense which makes him a victim rather than an aggressor.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Serpounce FTW,

You do make fine points to counterpoint XXlight ringerXX statement that tvStannis contrast of using unhonorable means in his pursuit. Just not too interested in going over book when focus on tvStannis. In that I overlook an aspect of Stannis/Renly.

Stannis in the end could of joined Renly. He would not of been King but Lannister would be done. He does want the Iron Throne though and use nefarious means with Renly (and Crosby in the book).

[Lord Davos Baratheon]

I'd reword this. Yes, Renly and Stannis were going to fight one another and that is a difficult situation for both of them to be in. It is not the fact that he decided to act first that most readers object to but how he acted. Using black magic isn't the same as facing one another. It isn't right or honest or fair which is rather hypocritical for a man who says fairness and being right is the most important thing. So it's not that "Still he used magic forces" but because he used it that doesn't sit well with some readers. There was nothing Renly could do in his defense which makes him a victim rather than an aggressor.

I think that Stannis' actions were justifiable. Yes, he killed his brother with black magic and that wasn't very honorable of him, but we must look at the big picture here. Stannis is the rightful king. His brother did not support his claim and instead tried to seize the throne for himself. Therefore his brother was a traitor. What would you do if you faced something like this? It's the family x duty thing all over again.

What I'm trying to say is that Stannis wasn't in a comfortable situation. He had to act and he didn't have the infantry his brother had. Yes, it was brutal and it yes, it's controversial when you think about the fact that his character is so obsessed with honor, but sometimes you must choose the hard way for the greater good.

Serpounce FTW,

You do make fine points to counterpoint XXlight ringerXX statement that tvStannis contrast of using unhonorable means in his pursuit. Just not too interested in going over book when focus on tvStannis. In that I overlook an aspect of Stannis/Renly.

Stannis in the end could of joined Renly. He would not of been King but Lannister would be done. He does want the Iron Throne though and use nefarious means with Renly (and Crosby in the book).

Stannis can't stand slights. How do you think he would feel bending the knee to his younger brother? Just thinking about it makes me wanna grind my teeth.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I think that Stannis' actions were justifiable. Yes, he killed his brother with black magic and that wasn't very honorable of him, but we must look at the big picture here. Stannis is the rightful king. His brother did not support his claim and instead tried to seize the throne for himself. Therefore his brother was a traitor. What would you do if you faced something like this? It's the family x duty thing all over again.

What I'm trying to say is that Stannis wasn't in a comfortable situation. He had to act and he didn't have the infantry his brother had. Yes, it was brutal and it yes, it's controversial when you think about the fact that his character is so obsessed with honor, but sometimes you must choose the hard way for the greater good.

Stannis can't stand slights. How do you think he would feel bending the knee to his younger brother? Just thinking about it makes me wanna grind my teeth.

This may well have been what Stannis was thinking but it doesn't change the fact that it goes completely against what he claims to stand for and that by using a magical assassin, he made his brother a victim. Two things that are very hard (maybe impossible?) for Stannis to come back from. That's why he's so divisive: some readers ignore this or justify his action here and other readers cannot ignore it or justify it.

[TheKitttenGuard]

XxLightbringerXx,

It may not of been a very realistic option for Stannis it is still one available in the grand scheme.

Also you stated that book Stannis will not do something dishonorable to advance in contrast to tvStannis and it has been demostrated he has. Your opinion of the right or wrong does not matter since it been shown to do something similar in both mediums.

People are all free of their view but just because you dislike tvStannis protrayal does not have to be due to D&D hate Stannis agenda. You may just be more use to how it is done in the book than on the show.