Is there any hope for the adaptation of Stannis in Season 4? (TV and Book Spoilers)

[Dragon greyscale]

Tony/Melfi is a good parallel, Cersei/Jaime or Brienne/Jaime not so much imo. I already said that they could have gone the route of plain sexual tension (Dany/Daario). I think that sort of dynamic is comparable to your example Brienne/Jaime, in that every person with an IQ of over 20 understands that they're about to hump each other.

However, as I stated, I don't think that sort of superficial sexual tension should apply to Mel/Stannis. I've never gotten the impression (from books and show) that they had a reciprocal physical attraction that wad just that. There's something deeper going on. Stannis lusts after power and Mel is a symbol for that.

So again, Tony/Melfi is closer to the book version of Stan/Mel. Having said that, their relationship is thoroughly examined in the Sopranos through elaborate dialogue and dreams. On multiple occasions, they both mentioned in their respective therapies that they lust for the other. And the dreams make their sexual subconscious desires explicit (I remember dream scenes where they fuck on her desk etc.).

But you do see the problem here right? Extensive psychotherapy and dream sequences are needed to lay bare the inner working of a character's psyche. There's no way GoT can work this kind of stuff in given the scope of the narrative and the amount of characters. These are colliding worlds: small individual psychological examinations versus epic grandiose storytelling.

There's a third alternative to dreams and therapy though; literature!

[Lord Jakkor]

I think tv viewers will rally for Stannis the second he heads to the Wall and it's made clearly that he means to save the realm. So far he's mostly been the guy that will do anything to win the crown he believes is rightfully is, even killing his own brother.

[Miodrag]

Tony/Melfi is a good parallel, Cersei/Jaime or Brienne/Jaime not so much imo. I already said that they could have gone the route of plain sexual tension (Dany/Daario). I think that sort of dynamic is comparable to your example Brienne/Jaime, in that every person with an IQ of over 20 understands that they're about to hump each other.

Well, I wasn't making a parallel to the nature of Stannis/Mel relationship, because it is pretty unique in it's very core. Just wanted to remind you that there's more than one way to depict a desire on screen, and that you don't need to turn Stannis&Mel into Dany&Drogo, as you were suggesting. So, I was just talking of the technical aspect: what can be achieved with camera work and face expressions. Depicting Stannis/Mel explicitly isn't the onliest way to depict it.

However, as I stated, I don't think that sort of superficial sexual tension should apply to Mel/Stannis. I've never gotten the impression (from books and show) that they had a reciprocal physical attraction that wad just that. There's something deeper going on. Stannis lusts after power and Mel is a symbol for that.

We definitely agree there's much more than sexual tension in Stannis/Mel canon. That is exactly why I find the show depiction of their relationship a failure: Mel's sexual attractiveness is emphasized beyond proportions and it dwarfs any other aspect of their relationship. In the novels she's also described as attractive, but she's certainly intimidating more than she's attractive. In the show, she intimidates nobody. Even BWB lust after her, when she comes to pick up Gendry (remember how Anguy and Gendry explain to Arya: "Because you're a woman", or something to that effect), but I can't remember a person that is afraid of her - other than Gendry in that infamous "Come fight death with me" scene in 03x08, of course, but that's a problem on it's own, because the entire scene lacks logic in the first place (which was extensively debated at the time).

And, I'd never say book-Stannis lusts after power. TV Stannis, I don't know - what they're trying to do with him is a mystery to me, not at the least because they can't connect him to The Power, which is the only theme D&D seem interested in, and therefore they just don't know what to do with him, in my opinion. Stannis from the books is much more layered, and I find it a shame they disregarded some of his layers that could easily be depicted on-screen with few precious dialogues with Davos (just like GRRM did it, actually). And that can never be overstated in regards to his relation with divine authorities, which, for the reasons that were extensively discussed in earlier pages on this thread, is as fascinating as they come.

So again, Tony/Melfi is closer to the book version of Stan/Mel. Having said that, their relationship is thoroughly examined in the Sopranos through elaborate dialogue and dreams. On multiple occasions, they both mentioned in their respective therapies that they lust for the other. And the dreams make their sexual subconscious desires explicit (I remember dream scenes where they fuck on her desk etc.).

But you do see the problem here right? Extensive psychotherapy and dream sequences are needed to lay bare the inner working of a character's psyche. There's no way GoT can work this kind of stuff in given the scope of the narrative and the amount of characters. These are colliding worlds: small individual psychological examinations versus epic grandiose storytelling.

Of course Stannis/Mel would never have nearly the amount of time Tony and Melfi had. But, they don't need that much. It cuts both ways, the way I see it: epic grandiose storytelling also helps an author in a way, because where Tony&Melfi relationship could be fleshed out only through their sessions (and dreams, and occasional reactions by a third party, mostly Carmela), Stannis/Mel can be the talk of the realm. And again, they are the talk of the realm in the novels, where in ACOK literally everyone in KL keeps being scared to death over Stannis marching on the capital. In the show, practically nobody thinks of Stannis prior to episode 02x08.

Yes, they have limited time in the show, which is why I find the way they're using it even more absurd.

[Aldi1234]

The idea that Melisandre being the impetus for Stannis to spare Davos and go to the wall being "pretty close to the book representation of Stannis" is incredible to me, and I'd like to know what the justification for this argument is. In the show's defence, they might fix this in Season 4, but I'm worried they won't.

Readers should not fail to miss Stannis' reluctance to kill Edric Storm - even on the strength of 2 out of 3 leeches doing their supposed work - vs Stannis deciding Gendry must die merely because of one leech in the show.

I agree they should have had Balon die before Rob it showed the true power of the leeches and kings blood and why Stannis was willing to sacrifice Edric(gendry).

[Lannister Hamster]

I think tv viewers will rally for Stannis the second he heads to the Wall and it's made clearly that he means to save the realm. So far he's mostly been the guy that will do anything to win the crown he believes is rightfully is, even killing his own brother.

This. That's when I got behind Stannis in the books

[Pinkie Baelish]

I'm very happy that they showed Renly/Loras, but it was obvious watching their scenes that they were written by straight men, especially the infamous shaving scene. But the worst part is how they changed the characters to be more stereotypically gay, and then erased Xaro Xhoan Daxos's homosexuality... But that's another topic entirely.

Yes, it's offensive how they made Renly and Loras effeminate homosexual sterotypes, and changed Xaro from what he is in the books, which is.......an effeminate homosexual stereotype .

There's no emoticon that's able to convey just how big of an eyeroll I just did.

[UKS]

Unreliable narrator gonna unreliably narrate. Stannis is not as nice as Davos thinks he is. Just like Tywin is not as evil as Tyrion thinks he is. (Controversial!)

[PatrickStormborn]

Yes, it's offensive how they made Renly and Loras effeminate homosexual sterotypes, and changed Xaro from what he is in the books, which is.......an effeminate homosexual stereotype .

There's no emoticon that's able to convey just how big of an eyeroll I just did.

I knew I should have expanded on that point in my post, because I had a horrible suspicion someone would say something ignorant and offensive. Unfortunately I had too much faith in this board.

It's offensive how they made Renly - who was not in any way an effeminate homosexual stereotype - an effeminate homosexual stereotype. But do you know what made it worse? Removing Xaro's "femininity" (he's not particularly effeminate but moreso than Renly or Loras) and homosexuality because they cast a masculine actor. Do you know how offensive that looks?!

But seriously, Xaro was not "an effeminate homosexual stereotype". He was an over-the-top Qartheen merchant who was homosexual. His culture was more responsible for his behaviour and attitudes than his sexual orientation, and that was refreshing to read.

But anyway, maybe I need to clarify even further: there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with portraying more stereotypical members of the gay community. The problem is changing the characters to fit stereotypes. That is ridiculously offensive.

Oh, and using lesbian sex between two sex workers for titillation but not even giving us a proper sex scene between Renly and Loras is also incredibly problematic.

[King in the North Carolina]

Cogman is clearly better than D&D. And that's a good start. But it doesn't say much. I would be better than D&D. You would be better than D&D. Patrick also. I think almost every poster on these boards would be better writer than D&D. They're that bad, really.

I was on board with some of your arguments, but this is silly. It's tough to write.

[Miodrag]

I was on board with some of your arguments, but this is silly. It's tough to write.

Yes, the writing is tough. But, what that has to do with the competence of D&D? The difficulty of their profession doesn't make them any better at what they do. Playing professional basketball is also tough, but some professional basketball players are so bad that a lot of street kids could beat them easily. Why would it be silly if I say those players are that bad? Or if I say D&D are probably the worst writers I've seen for quite a while, preciselly because of all the ridiculous stuff they came up with, stuff that is beyond silly?

You know, before the show, let's say some three years ago, if someone on these or any other ASOIAF boards was to propose the adaptation that looks like the one D&D actually made, well, I really think the reactions to that would've been much harsher than anything I or any other show-complainer wrote of D&D. Juts think about the fate that would fall upon some poor poster who'd come up with an idea that Dany's dragons are stolen in Qhart by scheeming Pyat Pree and Xaro who want to lure her in THOTU and when she goes there Pyat, after failing to trick her with an image of Drogo with a baby, chains her right next to her dragons, after which she orders them to burn him, and they actually do that, after which Dany locks Xaro and Doreah (Xaro's lover, by the way, who killed Irri to steal the dragons) in Xaro's vault that was empty the whole time, despite him claiming he has some countless treasures there. I'm positive that anyone who'd propose something that ridiculous would be crucified. And rightfully so. To come up with a subplot like that, one has to be extremely untalented, regardless of how tough the process of writing actually is.

[mormont]

[mod] Can we return to the topic? That is, specifically the character of Stannis in future seasons. Not, past portrayals of other characters. Otherwise, I'll take it that the discussion is finished and the thread will be closed. [/mod]

[The Drunkard]

I think tv viewers will rally for Stannis the second he heads to the Wall and it's made clearly that he means to save the realm. So far he's mostly been the guy that will do anything to win the crown he believes is rightfully is, even killing his own brother.

I doubt it. Stannis has lost a lot of the agency he had in the books throughout this season. Things like his horny beach scene, the immediate acceptance of Gendry's need to die, Davos being the one to make Melisandre prove herself, believing Mel after a single death, wanting Davos to die until Mel said otherwise.

At this point, his saving of the Wall is going to be attributed to him doing what he's told by Melisandre.

[Vympel]

I doubt it. Stannis has lost a lot of the agency he had in the books throughout this season. Things like his horny beach scene, the immediate acceptance of Gendry's need to die, Davos being the one to make Melisandre prove herself, believing Mel after a single death, wanting Davos to die until Mel said otherwise.

At this point, his saving of the Wall is going to be attributed to him doing what he's told by Melisandre.

It all depends on what happens with Stannis and Davos before his army arrives at the Wall really. They can't leave them doing nothing for the first 75% of the season, so there needs to be some character interaction and conflict. But yeah, if Season 3 ends with not a hint of Stannis' line of his obsession with his rights rather than his duty, I'll be mightily pissed.

EDIT: we know Stannis needs to rebuild his forces - Davos says as much. So its possible that one of his lords (Celtigar?) could defy him and the argument from book 3 about sacking his lands could come up. Or a variant of it.

[~DarkHorse~]

I just hope they do the Jon-Stannis bromance right.

:agree: If they get it right then Stannis should become more favourable to the viewers.

[Dragon greyscale]

Yes, the writing is tough. But, what that has to do with the competence of D&D? The difficulty of their profession doesn't make them any better at what they do. Playing professional basketball is also tough, but some professional basketball players are so bad that a lot of street kids could beat them easily. Why would it be silly if I say those players are that bad? Or if I say D&D are probably the worst writers I've seen for quite a while, preciselly because of all the ridiculous stuff they came up with, stuff that is beyond silly?

Such hyperbole...

I'll admit that GoT is not a masterpiece (like say The Sopranos, the Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad etc..) but come on... Worst writing you've seen in a while? Any random poster is better than D&D? I take it you do not watch a lot of tv because, while GoT isn't perfect, it's still a good show compared to 90% of the other crap on the idiot box.

And not to burst your bubble, but GRRM isn't the greatest writer in history either. Both Asoiaf and GoT are entertaining grand stories with noticeable flaws That's it. Neiter of them is a revolutionary work of art. The former may have a little more depth due to the medium (which is a universal phenomenon in adaptations) but it's not classic literature by any stretch of the imagination.

[GallowsKnight]

I'm cautiously optimistic. I think what the writers are aiming for is a "Heel Face Turn". Or when a villain becomes a hero.

Now Stannis in the books is a lot more complicated than this of course, he's a nuanced and unique individual, in many ways a byronic anti-hero with lots of positive and negative attributes. He's also fully matured when we meet him. He does undergo some development when he goes North, but it's not a magical change of personality.

But this is hard to show in a TV drama. So we get his dickish attributes played up at the start of the series, then when he goes North we might have people complaining about how "white-washed" he becomes.

[MachoGrande]

And not to burst your bubble, but GRRM isn't the greatest writer in history either. Both Asoiaf and GoT are entertaining grand stories with noticeable flaws That's it. Neiter of them is a revolutionary work of art. The former may have a little more depth due to the medium (which is a universal phenomenon in adaptations) but it's not classic literature by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not going to debate your opinion on the reputation of ASOIAF in literature here (it's already Off-Topic enough, lol), but I think "a little more depth" is an understatement. It's not that I argue that the show should be equally as deep as the novels, but if I look at some characters and themes I can't help but think that the difference is actually quite frappant. And for many here the difference is what puts the two works in different categories, too.

And I also don't get why people who defend the show always feel the need to argue ASOIAF's place in literature or point out that "ASOIAF isn't perfect and has flaws". Well, no shit it isn't perfect. But the literary value of ASOIAF compared to other books and that it *is not classic literature" doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about the quality of the TV-Show and it's success as an adaption. So what if the novels arent classics (according to you)? It doesn't make the show as it is better or worse...

[Miodrag]

Such hyperbole...

I'll admit that GoT is not a masterpiece (like say The Sopranos, the Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad etc..) but come on... Worst writing you've seen in a while? Any random poster is better than D&D? I take it you do not watch a lot of tv because, while GoT isn't perfect, it's still a good show compared to 90% of the other crap on the idiot box.

It is true that I try to avoid crap, but I can't dodge all of it. And when I compare that crap to what D&D brought to their adaptation of ASOIAF... yeah, what two of them created (Talisa, Margeary, Qhart subplot, Jon deviations, whitewashing...) is pretty much on the level of usual TV crap.

And not to burst your bubble, but GRRM isn't the greatest writer in history either.

Not to burst you bubble, but I was talking about how incompetent D&D are, not how GRRM is good. Care to explain your impulse (which you share with many show-apologists) to defend D&D by criticizing GRRM? I mean, even if he's far below greatest writers in the history, it is D&D who decided to adapt his novels, and it is D&D who done a miserable job with it, creating something that is well below both the source material and TV's greatest.

Both Asoiaf and GoT are entertaining grand stories with noticeable flaws That's it. Neiter of them is a revolutionary work of art. The former may have a little more depth due to the medium (which is a universal phenomenon in adaptations) but it's not classic literature by any stretch of the imagination.

Since you mentioned it, yeah, I believe ASOIAF deserves a place in the literary Pantheon (provided the conclusion of the series is on the same level as the first five books). And Stannis with his retinue would be among ASOIAF's strongest claims in that regard.

Stannis: a man who not only believes in deities, he actually witnessed the divine intervention (prologue of ACOK), and yet he basically doesn't give a fuck about gods, unless they can help his mission, and his mission is to take the position that is given by gods themselves (both in our world and in Martin's), only, he isn't interested at all in serving the gods, because he wants to serve the realm first and foremost, which kinda makes him a revolutionary, albeit he probably doesn't see it that way. And not to mention that he also brings yet another religion in a kingdom that is already multiconfessional, only, this religion he brings with him is something that may never find peace with other religions, so he may turn out to be the biggest challenge multiconfessionalism of the realm ever faced. And he's not even a POV character, so he's developed and presented by rather conventional methods (opposite to POV characters that are depicted through inner monologues, which are a relatively new literary technique, no older than 100 years). I love books, and I'm usually reading works that are widely considered high-literature, and I can't seem to remember I encountered characters that are more complex than Stannis is: not because high-literature lacks complex characters - on the contrary, it has those in abundance - but because Stannis is on par with the most complex ones.

Davos: to cut things short, this is a man who delivers one of the best lines I read like ever. In ADWD, when Manderley, in front of Freys, asks him what can Stannis offer him that the other side can't, he replies: "The chance to do your duty." Such a simple and at the same time such a powerful line. The essence of Stannis' philosophy that Davos serves without any reservation at all, and delivered in a perfect spot, in the middle of a perfect dramatic scene. Had Davos, or Stannis, been underdeveloped, that whole scene and that line in particular would feel artificial and contrived. That is not the case, however, because Davos and Stannis are storytelling gems.

Mel: a priestess that manages to scare the living hell out of almost everyone she encounters, thanks in large to significant unnatural powers she possesses, and yet, when she gets her chapter, we see how confused, and scared even, she herself is.

Let's go on topic for a while here and talk about the show rendition of those characters. I'd say Davos himself is portrayed rather faithfully, but, we have to consider that he couldn't be altered in any meaningful way, because, while layered and complex, he is defined by his endless loyalty to Stannis. And Liam's performance does help a lot. Stannis, on the other hand, is devoid of any personal relation to gods. His subtle defiance to gods in general and the god he himself uses and witnesses in particular, doesn't exist in the show at all. Maybe it's not too late to bring it in now, but I don't think D&D are interested in bringing it at all, because otherwise they wouldn't ignore it for so long. And Mel is ruined. In the show, she's but a seductress. She accomplishes nothing without seducing others, either by sexual appeal (Stannis, Gendry), or by gold (BWB). She intimidates nobody, with a possible exception of Sallador Saan. Mel is completely different character than she's in the books, and, what's much worse, she's a one-note seductress, as bland and flat as they come, which is a storytelling crime, as far as adaptations go. She's beyond salvation, because the show simply can't go back and undo all the banality and stupidity of TV Mel.

To conclude. I see that only a tiny fragment of posters here share my view that ASOIAF is a literary masterpiece. Everyone else seems like accepted it as an entertaining story with noticeable flaws. I'd like to hear what people consider as flaws, by the way, but people usually don't explain this stand. And some readers actually think that the entertainment that comes with ASOIAF is a flaw in itself, because, like, high-literature mustn't be entertaining. I actually encountered this notion on these boards, and it's a ridiculous notion: Shakespeare is entertaining, Dostoyevsky is entertaining, Mario Vargas Llosa also, Jose Saramago, Marques, Bulgakov... What, is Homer not entertaining?! It takes nothing from the depth and complexity of their stories. They created the most memorable characters in the history of fiction, and they put them in rich plots, which is why their stories are both entertaining and rewarding. When I look at what Martin did with ASOIAF, I see that same mission accomplished. Not only in regards to Stannis and his retinue: Lannisters, Starks, Dany, Night's Watch... they're not a bit less deep or engaging than Stannis's bunch. Thematically, and characterization wise, and storytelling wise, I can't see why is ASOIAF below classic literature, and especially below modern literature that is often considered classic (on the contrary, I find Martin, along with Llosa, to be head and shoulders above some modern writers that are universally praised by formulaic literary critics).

Now, you're perfectly entitled to value ASOIAF as you find fit. You don't see the greatness of a classic literature there; fine. I'd like to find out what classic literature you think is so clearly better than ASOIAF. But, even besides that, I'm puzzled by your notion that ASOIAF has "a little more depth" than GoT and that it's due to their respective mediums. ASOIAF has infinitely more depth than GoT, and, since GoT has much less depth than TV's greatest shows, how can the phenomenon of adaptations explain the shallowness of GoT?

[Koi No Yokan]

I think he will be much more warmed to from the "casual" crowd in the following seasons. Most people will agree that Stannis' time on the Wall is what changed their perception of him. I really don't think it's anything to pull hair over.

[Miodrag]

And I also don't get why people who defend the show always feel the need to argue ASOIAF's place in literature or point out that "ASOIAF isn't perfect and has flaws". Well, no shit it isn't perfect. But the literary value of ASOIAF compared to other books and that it *is not classic literature" doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about the quality of the TV-Show and it's success as an adaption. So what if the novels arent classics (according to you)? It doesn't make the show as it is better or worse...

Saw this post of yours only after I was done typing my response to 'Dragon greyscale', or otherwise I'd maybe not post at all, because we're in total agreement. That way of show-defending that both you and I recognized in his post, is something that irks me to no end. For starters, I've read quite a few books that entertained me all right, and they managed it with intelligence and style, but I found no significant depth in them (all great authors have that kind of books in their careers, only those are almost never talked about). But, I'd never post on sites dedicated to those novels, arguing that it really isn't a high-literature. With those kind of stories, I'm done practically the moment I finish the book.

Now, I'm not questioning anyone's right to visit and post on sites he/she wants. What I think, however, is that people might benefit from a little more respect for what they truly love. If I love something as deeply as I love ASOIAF, well, that's a strong indication that it hit many buttons, not just the entertaining ones.