Jump to content

(Book and Show Spoilers) Does anyone think the show portrays some characters more positively then the books?


Nargsmart

Recommended Posts

Lena Heady interpreted Cercei more sympathetically

LH only interpretation is based on the scripts, since she's never read the books.

Cersei a rich character? She's a comic book villain in the books, especially in AFFC, where every paragraph of hers felt like she was saying "look how evil I am".

Bollocks. I see people going on about this and makes me wonder whether they even bothered to actually read her chapters; how is she a comic book villain exactly? She's a very tragic character, cruel and unfortunate, and she's losing her mind. In the books she's great, if anything it's her show counterpart to be a cliche, uninteresting, misunderstood character. "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" was already old when Jessica Rabbit said it in the 90s.

Some characters are certainly portrayed more positively in the show, however I don't think it has much to do with gender but rather with the showrunners' favouritism. Liking a character means that they'll try to make it appear more sympathetic/positive/whitewashing and give it more screen time, like they do with Cersei, Tyrion and Dany. When they don't like a character they portray him from more negative to downright crap e.g. Catelyn, Jon, Sansa, Stannis, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are changed to make them less complicated and more obvious to the viewer

They want the show to be simple.

(...)repeated simplification and refusal to move the show out of the shallow

While I don't think that, it's an opinion everyone is of course entitled to. Then you proceed to list a bunch of examples that purportedly support your assertion.

Catelyn begging Ned not to leave for King's Landing. Cersei claiming she had one of Robert's kids stillborn and crying right next to the boy where should be wake up he might recognize her. Having Drogo rape Dany over and over. Renaming characters because apparently fans are too stupid to differentiate between Robert the sickly boy and Robert the King. Or fans can't spot the difference between Osha and Asha so now we get 'Yara'. Beating the viewers over the head with Renly and Loras being gay. Littlefinger being such an obviously skilled player to the point where he's almost a comic book villain. Shae....I can't even.....

But, when studying your examples closely, it's more than obvious that it's only the matter of different take on the source material and not of simplification, at least not to the degree you state. Let's consider a few. Catelyn, for example. Why would her begging Ned not to leave be simplification? It's a matter of changing her motivation and course of action, not of any inherent simplification in her character. Ditto for Cersei telling the story of her first child. What on Earth is simple about that? It's a detail not present in the books, nothing more. In what way is Cersei's character diminished (not CHANGED, but diminished) by said detail? Why is Robin simpler than Robert? Because there are only two letters after "Rob" opposed to three letters in the books? I'd like to see an explanation that doesn't boil down to "it's not in the books". Why is paying more attention to Renly's homosexuality a change aimed at simplifying the character?

Every single one of your stated concerns is rooted in comparison to the books, and you don't make even a minimal effort to argue the merits of those changes beyond resorting to the tired old cliche of checking in with the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a very tragic character, cruel and unfortunate, and she's losing her mind. In the books she's great, if anything it's her show counterpart to be a cliche, uninteresting, misunderstood character. "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" was already old when Jessica Rabbit said it in the 90s.

>Implying that the "evil queen" trope that Cersei embodies in the books isn't cliched at all.

The reason why people consider her to be a pantomime villain is because Martin makes no effort to show any 'goodness' in her character at all: she has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and the scene where she orders Pate's tongue to be ripped out if Tommen screams or cries during Pate's whipping perfectly shows just how little she loves her kids, and furthermore makes her into a bit of a cartoon villain. Compared to her brothers, Cersei is a far less complex and nuanced character. Just reading her first chapter is so jarring simply because she initially comes off as almost too awful to comprehend: it honestly felt like at times, Martin was basically beating us over the head with her villainy, as if to say "HA HA! Look at how awful she is!". When a person has pretty much no nice thoughts about anybody else, and constantly one-ups herself in her awfulness, it gets a little hard to take her seriously. If you gave the queen from Snow White a POV, it would pretty much read like one of Cersei's chapters.

Cersei's relationship with Joffrey is more realistic in the show, because even though she's clearly aware that her son is a monster, she still loves him regardless because she sees it as a duty a mother owes to her children. Book Cersei loves Joffrey because he's pretty much a teenage boy version of her, except more twisted, and her utter blindness to how evil he is a bit unrealistic, honestly.

Not too fond of the "he disagrees with me so I'm going to assume that they haven't read the books properly" argument, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Door, if I may, what are your favourite book charcters?

Why? My favourites would probably be Jon, Jaime, Brienne and Arya, but there are lots of characters who aren't my favourites as I don't necessarily like them, but I adore their POVs. Like Cersei, for instance.

Not too fond of the "he disagrees with me so I'm going to assume that they haven't read the books properly" argument, btw.

You're right, but it's baffling for me how can Cersei be seen as just a cartoon villain. Unlikeable yes, one note I just don't see it.

>Implying that the "evil queen" trope that Cersei embodies in the books isn't cliched at all.

The reason why people consider her to be a pantomime villain is because Martin makes no effort to show any 'goodness' in her character at all: she has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and the scene where she orders Pate's tongue to be ripped out if Tommen screams or cries during Pate's whipping perfectly shows just how little she loves her kids, and furthermore makes her into a bit of a cartoon villain. Compared to her brothers, Cersei is a far less complex and nuanced character. Just reading her first chapter is so jarring simply because she initially comes off as almost too awful to comprehend: it honestly felt like at times, Martin was basically beating us over the head with her villainy, as if to say "HA HA! Look at how awful she is!". When a person has pretty much no nice thoughts about anybody else, and constantly one-ups herself in her awfulness, it gets a little hard to take her seriously. If you gave the queen from Snow White a POV, it would pretty much read like one of Cersei's chapters.

I disagree with that. In her very first chapter she's mourning the loss of her son. Yes, it's dramatic and over the top, but it's very raw and actually quite painful. I don't remember the exact passage, but she says something along the lines of how no one ever made her feel as happy and complete as when she held Joffrey for the first time, which is really quite heartbreaking and a great juxtaposition to how horrible Cersei is. Same for her walk chapter; I went through so many feelings from downright despising her, to pity her, to feel somewhat sorry and heartbroken for her, to hate her again at the end of the chapter. That's some well written character to me, and hardly a cartoon villain.

Regardless, I just don't understand why a character needs to have some "goodness" to be a 3D character. A character is 3D and interesting if he's complex, not because he's good.

Cersei's relationship with Joffrey is more realistic in the show, because even though she's clearly aware that her son is a monster, she still loves him regardless because she sees it as a duty a mother owes to her children. Book Cersei loves Joffrey because he's pretty much a teenage boy version of her, except more twisted, and her utter blindness to how evil he is a bit unrealistic, honestly.

I don't have an issue in the way the relationship with Joffrey is depicted in the show, I'm mostly fine with it. What I have a problem with is with the way Cersei is portrayed as much nicer and more of a victim of everyone else, whereas in the books a big part of Cersei's arc is that she's victim of her own shortcomings for the most part. In the books she wants a storm to match her rage, in the show she sighs over her misfortunes and all of her despicable deeds are given to Joffrey. This doesn't make her a better character, just more bland and cliche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cersei isn't one dimensional but her POV chapters were poorly constructed.They were so over the top and villainous it was almost comedic.

Her cartoon evilness is so over the top, she even has her own Frankenstein's monster, and her own Igor/Evil Henchman to do scientific experiments on people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cersei isn't one dimensional but her POV chapters were poorly constructed.They were so over the top and villainous it was almost comedic.

But that's because she's a big over the top drama queen in the books, I think she's meant to come across that way.

By all means though, I wouldn't have objected to the show toning down that aspect of Cersei as it might not fit with the show, but they did a 180 on her. Which was completely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cersei's relationship with Joffrey is more realistic in the show, because even though she's clearly aware that her son is a monster, she still loves him regardless because she sees it as a duty a mother owes to her children. Book Cersei loves Joffrey because he's pretty much a teenage boy version of her, except more twisted, and her utter blindness to how evil he is a bit unrealistic, honestly.

I beg to defer about book-Cersei's relationship with Joff. She claims she loved him, or, if I remember correctly, how much he meant to her (which doesn't have to be the same as love). But, even if she did feel something for him or any other of her children, she certainly feels stronger for herself. Her sex with Jaime right by Joff's dead body shows exactly that. That's some disturbing stuff that I find hard time connecting with love, especially mother's love. Fucking by son's corpse - I mean, just try to depict any real life mother doing anything similar; it's impossible.

With that in mind, Cersei may be the perfect sociopath, someone devoid of any normal human emotion. Some find her over the top because of that, which may very well be the case for them, since it depends on one's personal taste. However, what I salute Martin for, is the fact that he went great lengths to explain how and why she became as she is. That's where her tales of how wronged she felt in childhood over being neglect in the name of Jaime play an important role. Overall, she's quite vulnerable in the books, only, she maniacally tries and sometimes (often?) manages to hide it from people around her. Her mood swings in ACOK, for example, illustrate that side of her perfectly.

One thing that possibly is a 'redeeming' quality is her bravery. Partly because she's crazy for decades now, and partly because of her not limitless intelligence, she almost feels no fear, no matter what consequences await her. (That's one of the reasons behind Martin adding that scene with her and Tommen on the throne in "Blackwater" - maybe he wanted to show that irrational boldness of hers that was somewhat downplayed in the show). Her unstoppableness in whatever she does is in stark contrast with her vulnerability, but those two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in sociopaths they may go along just fine, I suspect.

What the show so far didn't alter, is that she's the dominant force in the twincest. Of course, true temptations in that regard are yet to come, since the twins have just reunited, but Cersei dominating Jaime (and, psychologically, all the manhood catering culture that long ago denied her equal rights with her twin brother) is something I think D&D won't change. However, after all the emphasis they put on her love for her children, I think it would pass odd if they leave the sex scene by Joff's corpse. Myself, a purist and proud of it, would advise them to cut it out at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to defer about book-Cersei's relationship with Joff. She claims she loved him, or, if I remember correctly, how much he meant to her (which doesn't have to be the same as love). But, even if she did feel something for him or any other of her children, she certainly feels stronger for herself. Her sex with Jaime right by Joff's dead body shows exactly that. That's some disturbing stuff that I find hard time connecting with love, especially mother's love. Fucking by son's corpse - I mean, just try to depict any real life mother doing anything similar; it's impossible.

IMO, the sex beside Joffrey's corpse only shows that she's deranged. I think it's pretty obvious in her chapters that she did love Joffrey, even if she doesn't word it that way. Of course, like with everything Cersei loves there's a component of selfishness, but I didn't view that sex scene as taking anything away from the fact she cared for her son. If anything it simply showed how unhealthy and downright vomit inducing she and Jaime are together. But Cersei is completely devastated at losing Joff, I don't think it's possible to deny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to defer about book-Cersei's relationship with Joff. She claims she loved him, or, if I remember correctly, how much he meant to her (which doesn't have to be the same as love). But, even if she did feel something for him or any other of her children, she certainly feels stronger for herself. Her sex with Jaime right by Joff's dead body shows exactly that. That's some disturbing stuff that I find hard time connecting with love, especially mother's love. Fucking by son's corpse - I mean, just try to depict any real life mother doing anything similar; it's impossible.

With that in mind, Cersei may be the perfect sociopath, someone devoid of any normal human emotion. Some find her over the top because of that, which may very well be the case for them, since it depends on one's personal taste. However, what I salute Martin for, is the fact that he went great lengths to explain how and why she became as she is. That's where her tales of how wronged she felt in childhood over being neglect in the name of Jaime play an important role. Overall, she's quite vulnerable in the books, only, she maniacally tries and sometimes (often?) manages to hide it from people around her. Her mood swings in ACOK, for example, illustrate that side of her perfectly.

One thing that possibly is a 'redeeming' quality is her bravery. Partly because she's crazy for decades now, and partly because of her not limitless intelligence, she almost feels no fear, no matter what consequences await her. (That's one of the reasons behind Martin adding that scene with her and Tommen on the throne in "Blackwater" - maybe he wanted to show that irrational boldness of hers that was somewhat downplayed in the show). Her unstoppableness in whatever she does is in stark contrast with her vulnerability, but those two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in sociopaths they may go along just fine, I suspect.

What the show so far didn't alter, is that she's the dominant force in the twincest. Of course, true temptations in that regard are yet to come, since the twins have just reunited, but Cersei dominating Jaime (and, psychologically, all the manhood catering culture that long ago denied her equal rights with her twin brother) is something I think D&D won't change. However, after all the emphasis they put on her love for her children, I think it would pass odd if they leave the sex scene by Joff's corpse. Myself, a purist and proud of it, would advise them to cut it out at this point.

I think you're for the most part right about Book Cersei. She is a true sociopath, but that fact can make her POVs somewhat monotonous, that is, once we realize she is a sociopath with few (if any) redeeming qualities, her character arc is a bit flat. Sure, things happen in her arc, but she's not really capable of change. But not every character is made to be redeemed (see There Will Be Blood or Young Adult) as recent film entries fighting the redemption arc.

Still, I'm not against the show's building Cersei sympathy in one season to give her a stronger down-turn the next. (The show is not forgetting about her malice and clumsiness, though, re her blatant threat against Margaery)

I agree they cut the sept-sex-scene; Jaime feels a bit farther along on his arc on the show at this point. I also think Cersei gives Jaime an early S4 turn-off by telling him of the Red Wedding with bloodthirsty glee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the sex beside Joffrey's corpse only shows that she's deranged. I think it's pretty obvious in her chapters that she did love Joffrey, even if she doesn't word it that way. Of course, like with everything Cersei loves there's a component of selfishness, but I didn't view that sex scene as taking anything away from the fact she cared for her son. If anything it simply showed how unhealthy and downright vomit inducing she and Jaime are together. But Cersei is completely devastated at losing Joff, I don't think it's possible to deny that.

Well, she's an enigma, that's for sure, so I possess no beyond-doubt evidence that she doesn't love Joff. She cared for all of her children, no doubt about that. And, when she replied to Ned that he loves his children nothing more than she loves hers, I believed her at first. However, 'deranged' doesn't do it for me in terms of explaining their sex. None of her actions at that moment point to a deranged person, ion my eyes. She's quite meticulous in arranging Tyrion's death, for example. Frantically craving Tyrion's death would be a deranged thing. But, orchestrating everything around and in the trial (Tywin probably didn't have a hand in all that) isn't that, in my book. And, just the manner in which she realizes Tyrion's motives: "He killed my son to harm ME!", reminds me how extremely self-centered she really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're for the most part right about Book Cersei. She is a true sociopath, but that fact can make her POVs somewhat monotonous, that is, once we realize she is a sociopath with few (if any) redeeming qualities, her character arc is a bit flat. Sure, things happen in her arc, but she's not really capable of change. But not every character is made to be redeemed (see There Will Be Blood or Young Adult) as recent film entries fighting the redemption arc.

Still, I'm not against the show's building Cersei sympathy in one season to give her a stronger down-turn the next. (The show is not forgetting about her malice and clumsiness, though, re her blatant threat against Margaery)

I agree they cut the sept-sex-scene; Jaime feels a bit farther along on his arc on the show at this point. I also think Cersei gives Jaime an early S4 turn-off by telling him of the Red Wedding with bloodthirsty glee.

TV Cersei is one of the changes I have no problem with. If I was in charge, I wouldn't change her, but they wanted her more on the screen and there she is. Lena's quite fine, which does help. But, they didn't have to change everyone around her in the name of that. Massacre of Robert's bastards, for example: they could have left inconclusive who ordered it, which I'd like more. And OK, she can cry occasionally, if they found no other way to depict her vulnerability, but then they should left her nastier reactions to Tyrion. But, like I said, I have no big problems with TV Cersei. I just don't think she's any kind of an improvement on book Cersei, but she doesn't trouble me.

About her chapters, I found them mostly funny, in terms of - finally a female character with a healthy doze of humor, even a bitter one. (Asha is an even better example, cause the humor in her chapters is more witty, peppered with irony and cynicism, but Cersei chapters came first in AFFC.) And, even if somewhat monotonous in AFFC, her two chapters in ADWD are total triumphs. I questioned every female reader I personally know, and they all felt those two chapters are as frighteningly close to real female mind as any - and they were written by a male writer. So, if trimming her AFFC chapters would endanger her ADWD chapters (not saying that's the case for sure, just that I'm not sure it isn't), I'd leave her AFFC chapters exactly as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV Cersei is one of the changes I have no problem with. If I was in charge, I wouldn't change her, but they wanted her more on the screen and there she is. Lena's quite fine, which does help. But, they didn't have to change everyone around her in the name of that. Massacre of Robert's bastards, for example: they could have left inconclusive who ordered it, which I'd like more. And OK, she can cry occasionally, if they found no other way to depict her vulnerability, but then they should left her nastier reactions to Tyrion. But, like I said, I have no big problems with TV Cersei. I just don't think she's any kind of an improvement on book Cersei, but she doesn't trouble me.

About her chapters, I found them mostly funny, in terms of - finally a female character with a healthy doze of humor, even a bitter one. (Asha is an even better example, cause the humor in her chapters is more witty, peppered with irony and cynicism, but Cersei chapters came first in AFFC.) And, even if somewhat monotonous in AFFC, her two chapters in ADWD are total triumphs. I questioned every female reader I personally know, and they all felt those two chapters are as frighteningly close to real female mind as any - and they were written by a male writer. So, if trimming her AFFC chapters would endanger her ADWD chapters (not saying that's the case for sure, just that I'm not sure it isn't), I'd leave her AFFC chapters exactly as they are.

I found reading AFfC/ADwD interlaced improved my experience of her in the books- her scenes were in better balance with the rest of the material that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About her chapters, I found them mostly funny, in terms of - finally a female character with a healthy doze of humor, even a bitter one. (Asha is an even better example, cause the humor in her chapters is more witty, peppered with irony and cynicism, but Cersei chapters came first in AFFC.) And, even if somewhat monotonous in AFFC, her two chapters in ADWD are total triumphs. I questioned every female reader I personally know, and they all felt those two chapters are as frighteningly close to real female mind as any - and they were written by a male writer. So, if trimming her AFFC chapters would endanger her ADWD chapters (not saying that's the case for sure, just that I'm not sure it isn't), I'd leave her AFFC chapters exactly as they are.

Methinks Cersei's AFfC/ADwD chapters would've been met with more praise and less accusations of monotony had they all been included in a single book, i.e. AFfC. In fact, seeing as how it has nothing to do with Meereneese Knot or any other plot that gave Martin a headache, I'm surprised he didn't write all those ADwD Cersei, Jaime, and Arya chapters in 2006 and included them in Feast right then and there. They comprise perfect material for that book and as an added bonus, it would make Dance a somewhat slimmer book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Weeping Sore

@Mr Fixit

I'm still to taste AFFC and ADWD interlaced. Looks like that method improved everyone's experience with those books, regardless of how much one liked or hated them before. Even without personal experience, I can't see any downside of that approach. Might be tempting for Martin to republish them that way some day, once he's finished with the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Cersei, one of my least favorite changes to a character has been Brienne. I loved her wide-eyed innocence in the book, when it came to her ideas about knights and how they should behave. I loved how she reacted in AFfC when she is forced to kill her first man, then sobs. When she kills the Stark man with a long, drawn-out gutting, it felt all kinds of wrong. It got the point across to the audience, and it impressed Jaime, but it was still disappointing.

Later when she berates Jaime for whinging about losing his hand, she tells him "you sound like a bloody woman." Book!Brienne would never, in a zillion years, make a comment like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Weeping Sore

@Mr Fixit

I'm still to taste AFFC and ADWD interlaced. Looks like that method improved everyone's experience with those books, regardless of how much one liked or hated them before. Even without personal experience, I can't see any downside of that approach. Might be tempting for Martin to republish them that way some day, once he's finished with the series.

I'm also tempted to reread them that way, though there are some downsides, or so I've heard. For one, it can be wearying to keep track of so many storylines and characters in a single book and a reader would need to wait even longer to reach the next chapter of any one protagonist.

Also, there is a certain repetition of information conveyed, primarily in the first chapters of Sam and Jon in AFfC and ADwD respectively. You'd also need to keep in mind that by the time Quentyn's quest is revealed at the end of AFfC, you'll have already read about it in corresponding ADwD chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic, sort of.

Among all those characters that found their way into the show, there's one who was perhaps improved - though not by more positive portrayal, but, on the contrary, by drastically more negative. And the character, strictly speaking, hasn't even appeared in the show, nor in the books for that matter. Tysha.

Now, when TV Shae said to Tyrion: "Of course she was a whore, because no woman who was nearly raped would jump into bed with a man only hours later", that sounded like a god damn fact of life. Like, of course no woman wouldn't do that. Near rape is a trauma on it's own, and it would take more than hours to recover from it.

Granted, even in the books we still don't know what exactly happened there, and that is why I can't consider this an improvement (better probably: correction) just yet. There are controversial testimonies, but if Jaime's one is what is truth, and Tysha was really just a girl saved by Lannister brothers, well, then Martin probably made one of his rare mistakes in this case. and in that case, a proper correction would be to expand the time between saving and bedding to at least a couple of days.

Now, maybe TV Shae's words were a sign that even in the books we still didn't learn the truth about Tysha. After all, Tywin didn't quit calling her a whore even when Tyrion was aiming at him with a crossbow, so maybe that's what she actually was, unbeknownst to Jaime. We'll have to wait and see where do whores go. In any case, Tysha is so far the only character who made more sense to me in the show than in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion, Shea, Cersei, Tywin, Theon, Dany and more. That is one of my biggest complaints, I love the show, but it needs to let their be more grey and evil characters. I actually prefer Tywin in the show though, I think he's an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...